From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jan 31 17:03:42 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:03:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum Message-ID: Dear All, This was from another list. Posting it here in case there are people who are interested: The Middle East DNS Forum will take place in the city of Dubai during 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). Also, for those interested in joining the Middle East DNS Forum dedicated mailing list can do so at http://mail.mednsf.org/mailman/listinfo/mednsf_mednsf.org. Thank you, On Behalf of the ME DNS Forum Team (أعتذر عن التكرار في الإرسال) الأخوة والأخوات، تحية طيبة وبعد، كما تعلمون، فإن منتدى أسماء النطاقات للشرق الأوسط سينعقد في مدينة دبي في الفترة 3-4 شباط فبراير 2014. ولمن لن يستطيع أن يحضر الإجتماع بشكل شخصي، فإبمكانه القيام بذلك عن بُعد. روابط المشاركة عن بُعد هي على النحو التالي: باللغة العربية ç http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-ar.m3u باللغة الإنجليزية ç http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-en.m3u هذه الروابط ستُفعل خلال فترة المنتدى فقط إبتداءً من صباح يوم الأثنين الموافق ل 3 شباط فبراير 2014 الساعة 9.00 صباحاً بتوقيت مدينة دبي (5.00 ص بتوقيت غرينتش) إن شاء الله. ايضاً، لمن يرغب بالمشاركة في القائمة البريدية الخاصة بصناعة أسماء النطاقات في منطقة الشرق الأوسط أن يقوم بذلك على الرابط الالكتروني http://mail.mednsf.org/mailman/listinfo/mednsf_mednsf.org. وأقبلوا فائق الإحترام والتقدير،،، عن فريق منتدى أسماء النطاقات للشرق الأوسط -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 19:38:29 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 01:38:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Norbert's plane ticket is valid. > > 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. > > Bill > > *Was Istambul really confirmed, or do they revert to original Ankara ?* Louis > > *********************************************** > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Jan 31 20:03:23 2014 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:03:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is Istanbul. Here is the email confirming the dates and place sent to MAG list. izumi ---- Dear MAG members, I would like to inform the community that the originally planned dates for IGF 2014 Istanbul (Sept 2nd thru Sep 5th.) is valid. There will be no change on those dates. I hope this is comforting news for the community. Best regards, Ihsan Durdu Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications of Turkey 2014-02-01 Louis Pouzin (well) : > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Norbert's plane ticket is valid. >> >> 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. >> >> Bill >> >> *Was Istambul really confirmed, or do they revert to original Ankara ?* > Louis > >> >> *********************************************** >> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 2 00:02:28 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:02:28 +0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: So-what-do-we-do-now-living-in-a-post-snowden-world Message-ID: <01e001cf0777$d91cf510$8b56df30$@gmail.com> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/so-what-do-we-do-now-living-in-a-po st-snowden-world/ http://tinyurl.com/pvghcey M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jan 2 03:30:11 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:30:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Outlook 2014 References: <01e001cf0777$d91cf510$8b56df30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332346@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI and happy new year. wolfgang http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131231_internet_governance_outlook_2014_good_news_bad_news_no_news/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 2 13:00:45 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:00:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] CITEL Assembly Message-ID: I attach the CITEL Circular announcing the Sixth Regular Meeting of the CITEL - https://www.citel.oas.org/en/Pages/default.aspx - Assembly to be held from February 10 to 13, 2014, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ci-085-assemblyCirc 1404.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 69894 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 2 16:35:23 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:35:23 +1100 Subject: Fw: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees Message-ID: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. From: Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 2 16:42:06 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:42:06 -0500 Subject: Fw: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> Message-ID: What are the names so far, pls? On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 > 2014. > > > > > > *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of > the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received > into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing > conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications > activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 > civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* 7* > January 2014*. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a > statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, > or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com(pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the > co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations > submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed > by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is > for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report > back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of > civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > *Explanation of process * > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most > active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance > space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, > Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, > and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons > are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, > with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is > imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and > so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching > out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of > the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this > process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work > in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in > place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include > refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting > forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, > such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met > with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted > for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 2 16:56:10 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:56:10 +1100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi Carolina, because the names are being gathered on various mailing lists (IGC, Best Bits, Diplo, NCSG) I don’t know, and wont know until after nominations close and we gather all nominations together. I will publish a list here when it has been compiled. The only name raised here so far is Louis Pouzin, but there are certainly others elsewhere. (and we certainly encourage more). Ian From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 8:42 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: Fw: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees What are the names so far, pls? On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. From: Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. Ian Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Fri Jan 3 01:49:28 2014 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 09:49:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] From Wikileaks of 2012 to Snowden's NSA Leaks of 2013: Implications for Global Internet Governance Message-ID: Happy new year, Please find this fyi http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121220_wikileaks_of_2012_to_snowden_nsa_leaks_of_2013_internet_governance/ Regards Gideon Rop DotConnectAfrica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 3 05:22:28 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 19:22:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF consultation Feb 2014 (Fwd: [IGFmaglist] February meeting date) References: <1E20C315-638B-496C-9858-B0603F5EDC6B@isoc.org> Message-ID: <13404CF2-8D28-4CD9-9204-12F54FA75DC7@glocom.ac.jp> Need to start thinking about contributions for the IGF open consultation, looks like the meeting will be held 19/20/21 February. A few issues as a starting point to consider: Thoughts on the Bali IGF: - themes (which worked well, which to keep, to cut, to add?), - changes in format for the main sessions (better, more needed?), - workshop assessment and reduced number of workshops (could do with hearing from MAG members about this as they are considering more changes), - remote access (recommend improvements), - visa arrangements and other logistics (meeting will be in September, less time for everything.) IGF and the April Brazil meeting: relationship (IGF as a means to carry work forward from Brazil?) New MAG, when announced? (people need to plan travel, visas, and accommodation: we need to know who are reps are) Following message from Markus Kummer to the open MAG list Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: Markus Kummer > Date: January 3, 2014 6:51:52 PM GMT+09:00 > To: Patrick Ryan > Cc: MAG List IGF > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] February meeting date > > Dear all, > > Let me wish a Happy New Year to you all - it promising to be a busy year and for the IGF it may well be a decisive year! > > While Chengetai is waiting for the final confirmation on the availability of meeting facilities for the February meeting, here are a few additional pieces of information. > > I seem to remember that originally we set aside 19-20 February for the Open Consultations/MAG meeting. Separately, we agreed in the donors' context to organise a donors' meeting back-to-back with the Open Consultations/MAG meeting. In the email Chengetai sent out he suggested having the donors' meeting on 19 February and the Open Consultations/MAG meeting on 20-21 February, assuming that it would accommodate those who also want to attend the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. > > Patrick now asks whether the donors' meeting would also be open to others. As we started discussing IGF funding in the MAG context, there would be some merit in having a public discussion on these issues, but this is a question that would need to be decided by the donors. Based on past experience however I anticipate that the donors (i.e. contributors to the IGF Trust Fund) would like to have some time to be among themselves. > > Having said that, nothing stops us having a public segment as part of the donors' meeting. We could start with a discussion open to all interested participants, explain the state of funding, the budget and discuss enhanced fundraising efforts etc. and finished the day with a closed donors' meeting to see if there are issues they would like to discuss among themselves. > > As the week starts with a WSIS+10 meeting on 17-18 February, the question remains what is more convenient, that is to start or to finish with a donors'/funding meeting. I assume that many of you (but not all) plan to attend both WSIS+10 and CSTD WGEC. > > We have two options: > > A > 19 February: IGF Funding/donors' meeting > 20-21 February: Open Consultations/ MAG meeting > > or > > B > 19-20 February: Open Consultations/ MAG meeting > 21 February: IGF Funding/donors' meeting > > Looking at the two options from the perspective of the flow of the meetings, it would make more sense to start with the substantive agenda and then move to the equally important funding issue (Option B). However, I understand that depending on personal travel plans Option A might be more convenient. > > We could send out a doodle poll to check the preferences. > > Best regards > Markus > > On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:50 PM, Patrick Ryan > wrote: > >> Chengetai, >> >> In your note to the donor's list on December 20th, you also mentioned a donor's meeting happening on 19 February. If so, will this meeting on the 19th also be open to participants from the MAG who may be interested in joining the discussion? >> >> Patrick >> >> ------ >> patrick ryan >> public policy & gov't relations senior counsel, free expression and int'l relations >> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Shahram Soboutipour wrote: >> Dear Chengetai >> >> >> >> Happy new year to you and all the team, I wish you a very successful 2014, and also for IGF, since it seems it is going to be a critical year for IGF. >> >> I would also appreciate if you let us know the schedules as soon as determined because we need preparations and especially Visa is always a problem. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Shahram Soboutipour | Independent IT Business Consultant >> >> | tel: +98 913 141 6626 >> >> | fax: +98 21 8978 7875 >> >> email: shahram at soboutipour.com | soboutipour at gmail.com >> >> Skype | GoogleTalk | facebook | LinkedIn | twitter >> >> >> >> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Chengetai Masango >> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 5:30 PM >> To: Veronica Cretu >> Cc: MAG List IGF >> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] February meeting date >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Happy New Year to you all. >> >> >> >> We will get confirmation soon from UNOG conference services. The prospective dates are still 20-21 February. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 Jan, 2014, at 14:01, Veronica Cretu wrote: >> >> >> >> >> A very happy and prosperous 2014 everyone! >> >> >> >> Wishing you all the very best in this year - and best of luck in all your initiatives and projects!!! >> >> >> >> Vlada, thanks for asking and hope to have the details soon both on new MAG (as pointed out by Raul) and on the MAG meeting in February! >> >> >> >> A great year ahead to all of us! >> >> >> >> As ever, >> >> Veronica >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: >> >> Chengetai, Markus, >> >> have we confirmed the MAG meeting for 19-20 February in Geneva or it is >> still tentative? >> >> Best! >> >> Vlada >> >> >> >> >> *** >> Upcoming online courses at Diplo: >> Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) l >> Humanitarian Diplomacy l Capacity Development l Multilateral Diplomacy l >> Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources l >> Complete Catalogue of Online Courses: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >> *** >> >> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >> >> Vladimir Radunovic >> Internet Governance and E-diplomacy >> DiploFoundation >> email: vladar at diplomacy.edu >> web: www.diplomacy.edu >> twitter: @vradunovic >> >> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Veronica Cretu >> >> >> President, Open Government Institute >> Republic of Moldova - www.cmb.md >> >> >> >> Member of the Steering Committee, >> >> Open Government Partnership (OGP); >> >> http://www.opengovpartnership.org/governance-staff-donors >> >> >> >> Member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> >> To the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> >> >> Member of the Nominating Committee of ICANN >> >> (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering) >> >> www.icann.org >> >> >> Email: veronicacretu at gmail.com and/or veronica at cretu.md >> Skype: veronicacretu >> Phone: 373 067435000 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 3 06:23:21 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 20:23:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> Message-ID: <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Ian, all. I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the additional: 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, whether I shared those views or not. I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years of MAG are testament to that. As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other stakeholders. I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and Asia Pacific regional IGF. I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level required. Thanks, Adam Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. > > From: Ian Peter > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. > > > CRITERIA > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > Explanation of process > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > Ian Peter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jan 3 06:30:40 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:30:40 -0600 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> I second Adam's nomination Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >Hi Ian, all. > >I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). > >I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the additional: > >7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes > >I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, whether I shared those views or not. > >I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years of MAG are testament to that. > >As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other stakeholders. > >I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and Asia Pacific regional IGF. > >I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level required. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. > > > >On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >> >> From: Ian Peter >> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> >> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. >> >> >> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >> >> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the >> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to >> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. >> >> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >> >> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >> >> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining >> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> >> >> >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. >> >> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. >> >> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. >> >> >> CRITERIA >> >> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates >> >> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting >> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses >> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions >> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> >> Explanation of process >> >> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. >> >> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jan 3 07:54:06 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:54:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> So do I. jeanette Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > I second Adam's nomination > > Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >> Hi Ian, all. >> >> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >> >> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >> additional: >> >> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >> under-represented in global IG processes >> >> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >> whether I shared those views or not. >> >> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >> of MAG are testament to that. >> >> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >> stakeholders. >> >> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >> >> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >> required. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >> >> >> >> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>> >>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>> and 24 2014. >>> >>> >>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>> >>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >>> of the >>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>> stakeholders to >>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>> success. >>> >>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>> >>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>> >>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>> including: defining >>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>> >>> >>> >>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>> January 2014. >>> >>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. >>> >>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>> or both. >>> >>> >>> CRITERIA >>> >>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>> suitability of candidates >>> >>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>> multistakeholder setting >>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>> report back as the process progresses >>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>> discussions >>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>> >>> Explanation of process >>> >>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>> this process. >>> >>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Jan 3 08:07:15 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 15:07:15 +0200 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52C6B603.6010007@apc.org> Dear Vlada Thanks from me for this report too. Also thank you to some of the civil society experts who were present who updated me on what happened. I am gradually coming back to mail after spending some much needed time with my family who have to put up with me neglecting them for most of the year. Good that the HP panel will produce a written document. I think that is often the best mechanism in terms of civil society being able to get its ideas into a process. And the submissions from CS that went into the CSTD process has a lot of very valuable content that can be drawn on. Best to everyone for the new year. Anriette On 17/12/2013 04:29, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Many thanks Vlada for your clear reporting. > > izumi > > > 2013/12/17 Carolina Aguerre > > > +1, thank you Vlada. Very useful and informative > Best > Carolina > > > 2013/12/16 Mawaki Chango > > > Thanks, Vlada, for this detailed and very informative account > of what transpired at the HLP meeting in London. > Mawaki > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > *Mawaki Chango, PhD* > Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS > http://www.digilexis.com > > m.chango at digilexis.com > Mobile: +225 4448 7764 > twitter.com/digilexis > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > Skype: digilexis > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Vladimir Radunovic > > wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at > the High Level Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope > it will help us better understand the intentions and > potentials of this (dynamically evolving and > self-reshaping) initiative. > > > > I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo > who was invited among others by ICANN to provide its > expertise and assist the drafting of report by the HL > panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I > will try to bring as many details as possible while still > respecting this rule. The views below are my personal, as > I saw the discussions and the process. Besides the > impressions below, I (and several others) have been > extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here > ) > so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in > discussion through that. Formal Press Release has been > published and is available here > > – it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and > participants of the meeting as well as the future timeline. > > > > *HL Group and experts* > > > > Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; > additionally, a final one (Anriette from APC) has been > accepted during the meeting in London to reflect loud > civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech and > corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives > of governments; only now there is a panel member from > civil society organisation. > > > > It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel > was composed based on “names” rather than on > representation of stakeholders; yet it appears that it was > acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society > organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, > civil society experts dominate the expert group who is > supposed to assist with drafting the final report – as the > agenda in press release shows. As an observer (replacing > Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join > in London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil > society concerns expressed on this list and elsewhere, but > other experts were involved in formal discussion. I hope > Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend this > direct opportunity. > > > > At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the > experts, dozen of observers assisting Panel members or as > guests, and some ICANN staff – total about 50 people, > invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that will > gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose > there will be no further changes in composition of the > panel. I also got the impression the following two > meetings will not be opened for observers rather than > those invited directly or related to panel members, nor > there will be greater transparency during the meetings; > instead, it seems public consultations (primarily on 1Net) > will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. > > > > *Task* > > > > The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global > Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms”. Their > goal is to prepare a blueprint document – a report – as > described in press release. The focus of London > discussions was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, > discussing the “desirable properties” of future system, > and agreeing on next steps. While there were interesting > discussions, my impression was that there were very few > new aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel > (and especially the experts who do have extensive > knowledge of already-discussed issues in and various fora > in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of > previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing > the wheel. It was confirmed that the summary of discussion > points will be posted to 1Net.org soon asking for > community reflections. > > > > The final draft of the report should be ready during > second HL meeting in US end February; then it should be > formally submitted as contribution to Sao Paolo meeting > and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and > offered for public consultations towards the next draft > (not sure if only through 1Net, but probably will not be > limited to that). It is supposed the draft report will > find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The > outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into > the final report to be wrapped up during the third meeting > in Dubai in early May. It should then be fed into various > processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, IGF in > September, etc. It is important to mention that the > relevance and legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several > times in discussions, and I had a feeling that the panel > and experts are aware that this process should contribute > to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. > > > > *Other components* > > > > My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and > the HL panel from the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting > was mentioned only once at the end as a place where the > report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one > such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo > conference is part of this initiative. At the same time > the news was spread that Brazilian president Rousseff met > French President Holland and that France might support Sao > Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in > news yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). > > > > On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the > place in which public contributions on the draft report > should be provided. It was of course only the reference to > 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it is possible > that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no > further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its > Steering Committees or further steps. > > > > *Timeline* > > * * > > The timeline of meetings was presented in the press > release as well. Yet let me combine it here with the > updated info on other relevant 2014 events mentioned and > not mentioned in London: > > 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during > WEF annual meeting > > 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting > > 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC > > 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference > > 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference > > 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting > > > > > > I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new > initiative will be about. It is slightly clearer to me > now, though I still have lots of questions about 1Net. It > is my belief that we should try to, whatever the initial > idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its > potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve > communications among professional (and stakeholder) silos. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be > detailed in this case, and mention as much as possible. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Jan 3 08:17:12 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:17:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Agree, Adam would be a perfect fit for the Multistakeholder Executive Committee. Bill On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > So do I. jeanette > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>> Hi Ian, all. >>> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>> additional: >>> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>> under-represented in global IG processes >>> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >>> whether I shared those views or not. >>> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >>> of MAG are testament to that. >>> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>> required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>>> and 24 2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>>> >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >>>> of the >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>> stakeholders to >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>>> success. >>>> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>>> including: defining >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>>> January 2014. >>>> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. >>>> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>>> or both. >>>> >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>> suitability of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>>> multistakeholder setting >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>> report back as the process progresses >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>>> discussions >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>> >>>> Explanation of process >>>> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>>> this process. >>>> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 3 08:20:33 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:20:33 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133234C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Adam has my full support wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Fr 03.01.2014 14:17 An: Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees Agree, Adam would be a perfect fit for the Multistakeholder Executive Committee. Bill On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > So do I. jeanette > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>> Hi Ian, all. >>> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>> additional: >>> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>> under-represented in global IG processes >>> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >>> whether I shared those views or not. >>> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >>> of MAG are testament to that. >>> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>> required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Just a reminder re this - nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>>> committees in preparations for the "Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on Internet Governance", to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>>> and 24 2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> . Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>>> >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >>>> of the >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>> stakeholders to >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>>> success. >>>> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>> >>>> . Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>>> including: defining >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>>> January 2014. >>>> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. >>>> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>>> or both. >>>> >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>> suitability of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>>> multistakeholder setting >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>> report back as the process progresses >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>>> discussions >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>> >>>> Explanation of process >>>> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>>> this process. >>>> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.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 kstubbs at afilias.info Fri Jan 3 09:02:02 2014 From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:02:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133234C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133234C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2d443104-e0f0-4d8d-b51e-5408ccfb5b52@email.android.com> I fully support Adam Ken Stubbs "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >Adam has my full support > >wolfgang > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake >Gesendet: Fr 03.01.2014 14:17 >An: Governance >Betreff: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > >Agree, Adam would be a perfect fit for the Multistakeholder Executive >Committee. > >Bill > >On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> So do I. jeanette >> >> Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >>> I second Adam's nomination >>> >>> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>>> Hi Ian, all. >>>> >>>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>>> >>>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>>> additional: >>>> >>>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>>> under-represented in global IG processes >>>> >>>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and >along >>>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of >CS >>>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary >list >>>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both >these >>>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of >others, >>>> whether I shared those views or not. >>>> >>>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am >able >>>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two >years >>>> of MAG are testament to that. >>>> >>>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my >professional >>>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a >very >>>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>>> stakeholders. >>>> >>>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>>> >>>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas >of >>>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC >will >>>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>>> required. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He >works >>>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has >been >>>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and >development >>>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for >Japanese >>>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just a reminder re this - nominations close midnight UTC January >7. >>>>> >>>>> From: Ian Peter >>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>>> >>>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on >planning >>>>> committees in preparations for the "Global Multistakeholder >Meeting >>>>> on Internet Governance", to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April >23 >>>>> and 24 2014. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>>>> >>>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and >objectives >>>>> of the >>>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>>> stakeholders to >>>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances >of >>>>> success. >>>>> >>>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>>> >>>>> . Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>>> >>>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the >event, >>>>> including: defining >>>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and >directing >>>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight >UTC 7 >>>>> January 2014. >>>>> >>>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography >and >>>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to >this >>>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement >IGC >>>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date >for >>>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society >networks >>>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >Group. >>>>> >>>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application >whether >>>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee >(EC) >>>>> or both. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CRITERIA >>>>> >>>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>>> suitability of candidates >>>>> >>>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in >a >>>>> multistakeholder setting >>>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>>> report back as the process progresses >>>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in >these >>>>> discussions >>>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the >range >>>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>>> >>>>> Explanation of process >>>>> >>>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that >came >>>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation >in >>>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the >Internet >>>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - >the >>>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is >the >>>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching >out >>>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the >inclusiveness >>>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist >in >>>>> this process. >>>>> >>>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also >a >>>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member >network >>>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with >consensual >>>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for >this >>>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >*********************************************** >William J. Drake >International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland >Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org >william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************** -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 3 09:12:57 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 09:12:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <2d443104-e0f0-4d8d-b51e-5408ccfb5b52@email.android.com> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133234C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2d443104-e0f0-4d8d-b51e-5408ccfb5b52@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote: > I fully support Adam +1 -- 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Jan 3 12:34:28 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:34:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133234C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2d443104-e0f0-4d8d-b51e-5408ccfb5b52@email.android.com> Message-ID: I was actually going to nominate Adam! Thanks Adam. Full support. On 1/3/14, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote: >> I fully support Adam > > +1 > > -- > 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 nhklein at gmx.net Sat Jan 4 23:22:32 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:22:32 +0700 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52C8DE08.6060304@gmx.net> +1 Norbert Klein Cambodia On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > So do I. jeanette > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>> Hi Ian, all. >>> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>> additional: >>> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>> under-represented in global IG processes Thanks for this. >>> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >>> whether I shared those views or not. >>> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >>> of MAG are testament to that. >>> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>> required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>>> and 24 2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>>> >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >>>> of the >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>> stakeholders to >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>>> success. >>>> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>>> including: defining >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>>> January 2014. >>>> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >>>> Group. >>>> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>>> or both. >>>> >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>> suitability of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>>> multistakeholder setting >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>> report back as the process progresses >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>>> discussions >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>> >>>> Explanation of process >>>> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>>> this process. >>>> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Jan 5 20:09:47 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:09:47 +0700 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> +1 Norbert Klein On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > So do I. jeanette > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>> Hi Ian, all. >>> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>> additional: >>> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>> under-represented in global IG processes Thanks for this. >>> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >>> whether I shared those views or not. >>> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >>> of MAG are testament to that. >>> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>> required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>>> and 24 2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>>> >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >>>> of the >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>> stakeholders to >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>>> success. >>>> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>>> including: defining >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>>> January 2014. >>>> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >>>> Group. >>>> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>>> or both. >>>> >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>> suitability of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>>> multistakeholder setting >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>> report back as the process progresses >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>>> discussions >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>> >>>> Explanation of process >>>> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>>> this process. >>>> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 5 20:27:09 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 01:27:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu>,<52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Klein [nhklein at gmx.net] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:09 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees +1 Norbert Klein On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > So do I. jeanette > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>> Hi Ian, all. >>> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>> additional: >>> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>> under-represented in global IG processes Thanks for this. >>> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >>> whether I shared those views or not. >>> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >>> of MAG are testament to that. >>> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>> required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>>> and 24 2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >>>> >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >>>> of the >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>> stakeholders to >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>>> success. >>>> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>> >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>>> including: defining >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>>> January 2014. >>>> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >>>> Group. >>>> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>>> or both. >>>> >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>> suitability of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>>> multistakeholder setting >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>> report back as the process progresses >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>>> discussions >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>> >>>> Explanation of process >>>> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>>> this process. >>>> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Mon Jan 6 00:02:22 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 03:02:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi All, I also support Adam's nomination. Fatima 2014/1/5 Lee W McKnight > +1 > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Klein [ > nhklein at gmx.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:09 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > +1 > > Norbert Klein > > > > On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > So do I. jeanette > > > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > >> I second Adam's nomination > >> > >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: > >>> Hi Ian, all. > >>> > >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society > >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). > >>> > >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the > >>> additional: > >>> > >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically > >>> under-represented in global IG processes > Thanks for this. > > >>> > >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along > >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS > >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of > >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list > >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a > >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these > >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported > >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, > >>> whether I shared those views or not. > >>> > >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able > >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years > >>> of MAG are testament to that. > >>> > >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional > >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very > >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other > >>> stakeholders. > >>> > >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet > >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in > >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and > >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. > >>> > >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF > >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of > >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic > >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will > >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level > >>> required. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been > >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development > >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the > >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and > >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese > >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United > >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on > >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. > >>>> > >>>> From: Ian Peter > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM > >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > >>>> > >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > >>>> and 24 2014. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > >>>> > >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > >>>> of the > >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > >>>> stakeholders to > >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > >>>> success. > >>>> > >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > >>>> > >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > >>>> > >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > >>>> including: defining > >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > >>>> January 2014. > >>>> > >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > >>>> Group. > >>>> > >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > >>>> or both. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> CRITERIA > >>>> > >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > >>>> suitability of candidates > >>>> > >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) > >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > >>>> multistakeholder setting > >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > >>>> report back as the process progresses > >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > >>>> discussions > >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues > >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > >>>> > >>>> Explanation of process > >>>> > >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > >>>> this process. > >>>> > >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > >>>> > >>>> Ian Peter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 6 02:55:50 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:55:50 +1100 Subject: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <56AE028F1BF14AB487B14DB21758C1A2@Toshiba> Just flagging this for any additional comments. To date I think we have some sensible suggestions as to how this might be handled, but additional inputs are very welcome. There seems to be strong support for the concept that groups involved in a small co ordination group should have substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. This might be contentious but all comments are welcome. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 4:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. So how do we choose? Criteria discussed so far include: 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 6 15:42:57 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:42:57 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 6 16:33:39 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:33:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> Jeremy and Ian and all, this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee for the São Paulo meeting. My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded from the outset. Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated clearly from the topics of business interests. Relevant experience includes: * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). Greetings, Norbert Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 schrieb "Ian Peter" : > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > and 24 2014. > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > January 2014. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > report back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > Explanation of process > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > this process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Jan 6 18:01:14 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 23:01:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> Message-ID: I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee. I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. Thanks, Mawaki On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee > for the São Paulo meeting. > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would > insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds > of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded > from the outset. > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in > organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > Relevant experience includes: > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML > and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international > standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > > and 24 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > > of the > > > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > > stakeholders to > > > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > > success. > > > > > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > > including: defining > > > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > > January 2014. > > > > > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > > Group. > > > > > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > > or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > > suitability of candidates > > > > > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > > individual civil society organisation(s) > > > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > > multistakeholder setting > > > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > > report back as the process progresses > > > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > > discussions > > > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > > > > > Explanation of process > > > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > > this process. > > > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Mon Jan 6 18:15:04 2014 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> Message-ID: <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> I also support Norbert's candidacy. Cheers, -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee. > I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Jeremy and Ian and all, >> >> this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee >> for the São Paulo meeting. >> >> My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that >> the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be >> sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single >> two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document >> cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would >> insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the >> framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds >> of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded >> from the outset. >> >> Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools >> there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics >> and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience >> especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in >> organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since >> 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated >> clearly from the topics of business interests. >> >> Relevant experience includes: >> * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. >> * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with >> Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML >> and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat >> to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she >> published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) >> * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international >> standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". >> * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of >> the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. >> * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. >> * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes >> successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced >> Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to >> hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: >> accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 >> schrieb "Ian Peter" : >> >> > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >> > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >> > and 24 2014. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >> > >> > >> > >> > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >> > of the >> > >> > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >> > stakeholders to >> > >> > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >> > success. >> > >> > >> > >> > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >> > >> > >> > >> > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >> > >> > >> > >> > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >> > including: defining >> > >> > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >> > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >> > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >> > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >> > committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >> > January 2014. >> > >> > >> > >> > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >> > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >> > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >> > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >> > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >> > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >> > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >> > Group. >> > >> > >> > >> > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >> > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >> > or both. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > CRITERIA >> > >> > >> > >> > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >> > suitability of candidates >> > >> > >> > >> > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> > individual civil society organisation(s) >> > >> > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> > multistakeholder setting >> > >> > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> > report back as the process progresses >> > >> > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> > discussions >> > >> > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> > of civil society perspectives on these issues >> > >> > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> > >> > >> > >> > Explanation of process >> > >> > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >> > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >> > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >> > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >> > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >> > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >> > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >> > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >> > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >> > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >> > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >> > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >> > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >> > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >> > this process. >> > >> > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >> > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >> > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >> > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >> > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >> > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >> > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >> > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >> > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >> > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> > >> > Ian Peter >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jan 6 19:23:29 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:23:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: i think all the names should be gathered in one place and then the expression of support should be gathered, I know more people applied but not in the open list Ian, are you still the person that would do that? thank you On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Catherine Roy wrote: > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > > Cheers, > > -- > Catherine Roy > www.catherine-roy.net > > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive > Committee. > I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of > broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for > the BR meeting. > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Jeremy and Ian and all, >> >> this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee >> for the São Paulo meeting. >> >> My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that >> the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be >> sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single >> two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document >> cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would >> insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the >> framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds >> of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded >> from the outset. >> >> Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools >> there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics >> and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience >> especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in >> organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since >> 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated >> clearly from the topics of business interests. >> >> Relevant experience includes: >> * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. >> * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with >> Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML >> and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat >> to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she >> published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) >> * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international >> standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". >> * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of >> the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. >> * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. >> * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes >> successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced >> Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to >> hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: >> accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 >> schrieb "Ian Peter" : >> >> > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >> > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >> > and 24 2014. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >> > >> > >> > >> > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >> > of the >> > >> > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >> > stakeholders to >> > >> > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >> > success. >> > >> > >> > >> > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >> > >> > >> > >> > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >> > >> > >> > >> > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >> > including: defining >> > >> > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >> > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >> > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >> > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >> > committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >> > January 2014. >> > >> > >> > >> > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >> > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >> > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >> > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >> > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >> > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >> > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >> > Group. >> > >> > >> > >> > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >> > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >> > or both. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > CRITERIA >> > >> > >> > >> > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >> > suitability of candidates >> > >> > >> > >> > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> > individual civil society organisation(s) >> > >> > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> > multistakeholder setting >> > >> > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> > report back as the process progresses >> > >> > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> > discussions >> > >> > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> > of civil society perspectives on these issues >> > >> > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> > >> > >> > >> > Explanation of process >> > >> > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >> > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >> > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >> > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >> > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >> > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >> > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >> > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >> > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >> > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >> > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >> > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >> > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >> > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >> > this process. >> > >> > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >> > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >> > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >> > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >> > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >> > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >> > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >> > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >> > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >> > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> > >> > Ian Peter >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 6 19:28:28 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:28:28 +1100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba><20140106223339.189a301b@quill><1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <2AAE91706E2F493CB46A9D292013AA09@Toshiba> Once we have all names gathered – which will be after midnight UTC January 7 – I will put the full list up here. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Catherine Roy Cc: Mawaki Chango ; Norbert Bollow ; Ian Peter ; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees i think all the names should be gathered in one place and then the expression of support should be gathered, I know more people applied but not in the open list Ian, are you still the person that would do that? thank you On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Catherine Roy wrote: I also support Norbert's candidacy. Cheers, -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee. I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. Thanks, Mawaki On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Jeremy and Ian and all, this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee for the São Paulo meeting. My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded from the outset. Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated clearly from the topics of business interests. Relevant experience includes: * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). Greetings, Norbert Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 schrieb "Ian Peter" : > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > and 24 2014. > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > January 2014. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > report back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > Explanation of process > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > this process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Jan 6 20:44:04 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:44:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> Message-ID: At 19:01 06/01/2014, you wrote: >I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve >on the Executive Committee. >I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion >of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting >exercise for the BR meeting. >Thanks, > >Mawaki +1 :-) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 6 22:06:54 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:06:54 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. With best wishes, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 6 22:47:07 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:17:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6F5A6FD3-57F9-4A98-8F7E-20F8C16E43DF@hserus.net> What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I would say. Quite a lot of people devoted to ideas that are quite frankly harmful for civil society at large presume to become spokespersons for all of cs, the "global south" etc. and here Ian is only pointing out that civil society has been asked to submit nominations. Do you assume that only the caucus here is submitting nominations? --srs (iPad) > On 07-Jan-2014, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. > > Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. > > I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. > > With best wishes, > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM > To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) > > I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. > > I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. > > In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. > > At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. > > So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. > > But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. > > Ian Peter > > > From: Carolina Rossini > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM > To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM > Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > To: "discuss at 1net.org" > > > Hello all, > > I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: > > - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. > > - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. > > - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. > > - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. > > - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. > > - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and > begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. > > That is all I have for now. > > Thanks. > > - a. > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 6 23:50:17 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:50:17 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, I don’t think anyone is claiming to be civil society. We are simply co-ordinating a process involving major coalitions operating in this area (NCSG, Best Bits, Diplo, APC) working on behalf of the many organisations involved in a variety of networks to provide balanced representation from civil society. I am not aware of anyone else who is doing that, are you? Nor, by the way, am I aware of any process via which your slate of Community Informatics reps (from one aspect/grouping within civil society) can effectively be considered if you do not join in with your peers here in this process. Do you want 1net to make some decision to include CI reps and leave out more widely supported civil society reps? Firstly, I don’t think they will, and secondly, if they did, I would object strongly to someone outside of civil society making these choices instead of those inside. I would still urge you to join with the rest of us rather than setting up a divisive path which is not helpful to you or your organisation. Ian Peter From: michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:06 PM To: 'Ian Peter' ; 'Carolina Rossini' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. With best wishes, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 00:40:43 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 12:40:43 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <037601cf0b6b$04c7e890$0e57b9b0$@gmail.com> Ian (I’m a bit rushed right now but a brief reply.. From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:50 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Carolina Rossini'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Hi Michael, I don’t think anyone is claiming to be civil society. We are simply co-ordinating a process involving major coalitions operating in this area (NCSG, Best Bits, Diplo, APC) working on behalf of the many organisations involved in a variety of networks to provide balanced representation from civil society. I am not aware of anyone else who is doing that, are you? [MG>] You refer to yourself again as “civil society”… and I’m not aware of any groupings doing as you suggest but as you know the CI community is in the midst of a fully transparent NomCom process operating under quite strict and fully transparent guidelines. Nor, by the way, am I aware of any process via which your slate of Community Informatics reps (from one aspect/grouping within civil society) can effectively be considered if you do not join in with your peers here in this process. [MG>] I’m unaware of any statement or other representation which indicates this as you suggest. If there is such could I ask you to forward this to me at your earliest opportunity. Do you want 1net to make some decision to include CI reps and leave out more widely supported civil society reps? [MG>] No, however I’m suggesting that your claim to represent “Civil Society” is incorrect and dare I say presumptuous when in fact you are representing certain significant but by no means universally representative groupings within Civil Society. Firstly, I don’t think they will, and secondly, if they did, I would object strongly to someone outside of civil society making these choices instead of those inside. [MG>] I have no idea how Inet might act in this instance but I agree with you that under appropriate conditions, decisions concerning CS should be made by inclusive and to the degree possible, fully representative and legitimate CS processes. My concern here is that based on both my observation and my experience this is not the case in this instance and the statement of yours that I was responding to was a clear indication that your processes were not in fact inclusive… In this instance specifically of the Community Informatics community. I would still urge you to join with the rest of us rather than setting up a divisive path which is not helpful to you or your organisation. [MG>] As I have said in various ways on numerous occasions I have no desire to be “divisive” but nor am I prepared to accept processes of internal “governance” by CS which I do not consider to be legitimate or inclusive. The CI community is in the process of identifying representatives for nomination for the various “positions” you are pointing to. I would be delighted if once our processes are completed (by the end of this week I anticipate), a means could be found to ensure a common front representation to Inet in this regard. In this instance the broader issues of the lack of legitimate processes within both BB and CC:CS could possibly be put on the side to be dealt with in the very near future, while this particular matter was being addressed. Mike Ian Peter From: michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:06 PM To: 'Ian Peter' ; 'Carolina Rossini' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. With best wishes, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 01:22:57 2014 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:22:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 1+ for Adam ------- About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *The Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com ------------------------------ 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. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. On 6 January 2014 10:02, Fatima Cambronero wrote: > Hi All, > > I also support Adam's nomination. > > Fatima > > > > > > 2014/1/5 Lee W McKnight > >> +1 >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Klein [ >> nhklein at gmx.net] >> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:09 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> >> +1 >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> >> >> On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> > So do I. jeanette >> > >> > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >> >>> Hi Ian, all. >> >>> >> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >> >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >> >>> >> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >> >>> additional: >> >>> >> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >> >>> under-represented in global IG processes >> Thanks for this. >> >> >>> >> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >> >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >> >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >> >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >> >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >> >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >> >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >> >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >> >>> whether I shared those views or not. >> >>> >> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >> >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >> >>> of MAG are testament to that. >> >>> >> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >> >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >> >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >> >>> stakeholders. >> >>> >> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >> >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >> >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >> >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >> >>> >> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >> >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >> >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >> >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >> >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >> >>> required. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>> Adam >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >> >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >> >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >> >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >> >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >> >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >> >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >> >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >> >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >> >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >> >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >> >>>> >> >>>> From: Ian Peter >> >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >> >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> >>>> >> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >> >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >> >>>> and 24 2014. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >> >>>> >> >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >> >>>> of the >> >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >> >>>> stakeholders to >> >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >> >>>> success. >> >>>> >> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >> >>>> >> >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >> >>>> >> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >> >>>> including: defining >> >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >> >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >> >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >> >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >> >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >> >>>> January 2014. >> >>>> >> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >> >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >> >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >> >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >> >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >> >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >> >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >> >>>> Group. >> >>>> >> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >> >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >> >>>> or both. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> CRITERIA >> >>>> >> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >> >>>> suitability of candidates >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >> >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> >>>> multistakeholder setting >> >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> >>>> report back as the process progresses >> >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> >>>> discussions >> >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >> >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> >>>> >> >>>> Explanation of process >> >>>> >> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >> >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >> >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >> >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >> >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >> >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >> >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >> >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >> >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >> >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >> >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >> >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >> >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >> >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >> >>>> this process. >> >>>> >> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >> >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >> >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >> >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >> >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >> >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >> >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >> >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >> >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >> >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ian Peter >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ > > *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Tue Jan 7 02:24:33 2014 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:24:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> ,<1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: + 1 for Nobert. CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; jeremy at ciroap.org From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees I also support Norbert's candidacy. Cheers, --Catherine Roywww.catherine-roy.net On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee.I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. Thanks, Mawaki On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Jeremy and Ian and all, this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee for the São Paulo meeting. My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded from the outset. Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated clearly from the topics of business interests. Relevant experience includes: * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). Greetings, Norbert Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 schrieb "Ian Peter" : > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > and 24 2014. > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > January 2014. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > report back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > Explanation of process > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > this process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Jan 7 03:25:52 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:25:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: I also endorse Norbert's nomination. He's a trusted pair of hands and an asset to the community. On 07/01/2014, Grace Githaiga wrote: > + 1 for Nobert. > > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > Cheers, > --Catherine Roywww.catherine-roy.net > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the > Executive Committee.I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the > inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting > exercise for the BR meeting. > > Thanks, > Mawaki > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee > > for the São Paulo meeting. > > > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that > > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single > > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document > > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would > > insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the > > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds > > of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded > > from the outset. > > > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools > > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics > > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience > > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in > > organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since > > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated > > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > > > Relevant experience includes: > > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. > > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with > > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML > > and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat > > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she > > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international > > standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". > > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of > > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. > > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes > > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced > > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to > > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: > > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > >> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > >> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > >> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > >> and 24 2014. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > >> > >> > >> > >> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > >> of the > >> > >> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > >> stakeholders to > >> > >> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > >> success. > >> > >> > >> > >> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > >> > >> > >> > >> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > >> > >> > >> > >> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > >> including: defining > >> > >> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > >> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > >> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > >> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > >> committee will include 2 civil society representatives > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > >> January 2014. > >> > >> > >> > >> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > >> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > >> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > >> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > >> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > >> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > >> Group. > >> > >> > >> > >> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > >> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > >> or both. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> CRITERIA > >> > >> > >> > >> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > >> suitability of candidates > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > >> individual civil society organisation(s) > >> > >> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > >> multistakeholder setting > >> > >> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > >> report back as the process progresses > >> > >> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > >> discussions > >> > >> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > >> of civil society perspectives on these issues > >> > >> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > >> > >> > >> > >> Explanation of process > >> > >> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > >> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > >> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > >> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > >> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > >> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > >> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > >> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > >> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > >> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > >> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > >> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > >> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > >> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > >> this process. > >> > >> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > >> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > >> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > >> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > >> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > >> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > >> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > >> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > >> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > >> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > >> > >> Ian Peter > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 7 04:03:48 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:03:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140107100348.5709b3aa@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > I would still urge you to join with the rest of us rather than > setting up a divisive path which is not helpful to you or your > organisation. Has the Community Informatics community been invited to participate in the coordination process of civil society networks? I'm asking because I was under the impression that the Michael, on behalf of the Community Informatics community, had requested the opportunity for this community to be able to “join with the rest of us” (the various other major civil society networks/communities in Internet governance) but an answer like “not yet” had been given. In any case, at the current point in time, an invitation to the CI community to “join with the rest of us” should IMO not be directed to Michael but to Thomas Lowenhaupt who is chairing the CI NomCom. 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 7 04:06:50 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:06:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> ,<1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> + one for Norbert with my best wishes for a succesful mandate Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 07/01/14 08:25 > De : "Grace Githaiga" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Mawaki Chango" > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Ian Peter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > + 1 for Nobert. > > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; jeremy at ciroap.org > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > Cheers, > -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee. I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. Thanks, > Mawaki > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee > for the São Paulo meeting. > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would > insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds > of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded > from the outset. > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in > organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > Relevant experience includes: > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML > and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international > standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > > and 24 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > > of the > > > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > > stakeholders to > > > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > > success. > > > > > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > > including: defining > > > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > > January 2014. > > > > > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > > Group. > > > > > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > > or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > > suitability of candidates > > > > > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > > individual civil society organisation(s) > > > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > > multistakeholder setting > > > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > > report back as the process progresses > > > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > > discussions > > > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > > > > > Explanation of process > > > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > > this process. > > > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 7 04:40:49 2014 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:40:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to share with you the report on “Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality” that I drafted together with Matthijs van Bergen for the Council of Europe. One month ago, we presented this report to the CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI), which agreed to use it as a basis for the work of the Committee of Experts on Cross-Border Flow of Internet Traffic and Internet Freedom (MSI-INT) with regard to the elaboration of a CoE Resolution on Network Neutrality. Below the executive summary of the Report. Comments are more than welcome! Best regards, Luca Executive summary 1. This report was drafted with the goals to (i) provide deeper insight into how net(work) neutrality relates to human rights and (ii) suggest a policy and legal approach aimed at granting the full enjoyment of Internet users’ fundamental rights and freedoms through an open and neutral Internet environment, while simultaneously promoting unrestrained innovation and economic growth in the digital economy.[1] Network neutrality is a key enabler of human rights 2. Network neutrality prescribes that Internet traffic shall be treated without undue discrimination, restriction or interference, so that end-users[2] enjoy the “greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services of their choice, whether or not they are offered free of charge, using suitable devices of their choice”.[3] 3. On the one hand, network neutrality is instrumental to enable any Internet user to offer and enjoy online content, applications and services through any Internet-connected device of their choice, without having to conclude agreements with each Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) [4] of each intended recipient, and all ISPs in between. On the other hand, net neutrality ensures that Internet-users’ choices for certain online content, applications, services and devices are not unduly influenced by discriminatory delivery of Internet traffic. As such, net neutrality enables self-determination and facilitates the openness of the Internet, by deflating market and institutional barriers to enter into the ‘free market of ideas’ and to participate on equal footing in economic, social and political activities. 4. In our current information society, the ability to freely receive and impart ideas and information and to fully participate in democratic life is truly reliant on the nature of one’s Internet connection.[5] By ascribing to users the ability to choose freely how to utilise their Internet connection, without undue interferences from public or private entities, network neutrality directly contributes to the effective enjoyment of a range of fundamental rights, such as Internet users’ freedom of speech and right to privacy,[6] as well as the promotion of a diverse and pluralistic media-landscape, while unleashing a virtuous cycle of innovation without permission. 5. For such reasons the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the 2010 Declaration on network neutrality, underlining its commitment to this fundamental principle,[7] while in 2012 the Internet Governance Strategy of the Council of Europe urged the development of “human rights policy principles on “network neutrality” to ensure Internet users have the greatest possible access to content, applications and services of their choice as part of the public service value of the Internet and in full respect of fundamental rights”[8]. Network neutrality has come under threat 6. Certain Internet traffic management (“ITM”)[9] techniques currently allow ISPs to block, downgrade or prioritise specific data flows. Research has shown that ITM is frequently deployed in order to block or downgrade specific Internet traffic relating to online services which compete with other services offered by the ISPs.[10] Such practices compromise end-users’ capacity to freely receive and impart information online using applications, services and devices of their choice, and jeopardise the open and neutral character of Internet architecture. Furthermore, some large European ISPs have made clear through the media and other avenues, such as shareholders' meetings and industry associations, that they intend to depart from neutral Internet access provision, in order to discriminate and prioritise specific data-flows and monetise the value that specific online applications, services and content (conceived by Internet users) present to their subscribers.[11] 7. This illustrates that existing European approaches based purely on economic and competition-law principles have thus far failed to fully enforce the network neutrality principle, even though European telecommunications markets have generally been considered relatively competitive.[12] Indeed, just as the right to vote alone is not enough to ensure freedom in a constitutional democracy, the possibility to switch providers – which may be seen as the right to ‘vote (an ISP) with your feet’ – is not enough to adequately ensure the enjoyment of users’ freedoms on the Internet. 8. Therefore, it seems necessary to query what kind of policy and legal approach would be best suited to enforce the network neutrality principle and safeguard the public-service value of the Internet. A recommended policy and legal approach to network neutrality 9. In this report we propose a model framework on network neutrality which all Council of Europe member states can adopt in their legal systems. Importantly, the framework is directly inspired by article 10 ECHR, which ensures the right to receive and impart ideas and information without restriction or interference, unless such interference is strictly necessary for and proportionate to a legitimate aim. Since the goal is to ensure that Internet traffic shall be transmitted without undue discrimination, restriction or interference, whether by public or private actors, the format of article 10 ECHR lends itself very well to be transposed into a legal framework guaranteeing network neutrality. [1] With respect to the goals of this report, it should be noted that a number of participants to the Council of Europe Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights – a conference organised by the Council of Europe on 29-30 May 2013 – highlighted the interest of a policy framework aimed at safeguarding net neutrality. See: Belli L., Council of Europe Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights, Outcome Paper, June 2013. The concerns expressed during this conference led the Council of Europe to commission this report. [2] In this report we speak of Internet (or end-) users rather than consumers. This in order to reflect the idea that consumers are solely or primarily economic actors in a market setting, whereas ‘Internet users’ should be regarded as autonomous participants of an ‘information society’, connected through the Internet, with interests that range beyond the merely economical, including also social, political and other interests. [3] Council of Europe, 2010 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Network Neutrality, para. 4. [4] The term “Internet service provider” (ISP) is used to denote a legal person providing Internet connectivity to its customers. The term ISP also encompasses Internet transit providers – i.e. those entities that provide connectivity to various ISP, allowing them to interconnect their networks – but in this report, it does not include hosting providers and providers of online services, applications and content. [5] See: Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet. [6] Some even suggest a notion of net neutrality as a human networking right sui generis. See: Berners Lee T., Long live the web, Scientific American 22 November 2010; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee. [7] See: Council of Europe, 2010 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Network Neutrality, para 9, which also suggests further exploring network neutrality “within a Council of Europe framework with a view to providing guidance to member states”. This suggestion has been reiterated by several participants to the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights. See: Belli L., Council of Europe Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights, Outcome Paper, op.cit. [8] See: Council of Europe Internet Governance, Council of Europe Strategy 2012-2015, CM(2011)175 final, 15 March 2012, paragraph I.8.e. [9] According to BEREC ITM is: “all technical means used to process through the network traffic sent or received by end users, including both application-specific and application-agnostic traffic management. BEREC, A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe, 29 May 2012, p. 4. [10] Relating to Europe, see: BEREC, op. cit. Relating to the USA, see: FCC 10-201, Report and order on the open Internet 2010, paragraph 14. [11] E.g. KPN Investor Day, London 10 May 2011; ETNO paper on Contribution to WCIT ITRs Proposal to Address New Internet Ecosystem. In response, see e.g.: BEREC, BEREC’s comments on the ETNO proposal for ITU/WCIT or similar initiatives along these lines, BoR (12) 120 rev.1, 14 November 2012. [12] It should be stressed that, at the EU level, the Universal Service Directive (i.e. directive 2002/22/EC) has strengthened consumer protection, fostering better consumer information pertaining to supply conditions and tariffs in order to allow them to more easily switch providers, thus promoting competition in the electronic communications markets. However, as pointed out by BEREC, several types of discriminatory practices are particularly widespread at the European level. See: BEREC, A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet, op. cit. Furthermore, it has been noted by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis that “one cannot be optimistic about the intensity of competition [in the telecoms sector]. Moreover, if providers make their networks “less neutral” by implementing network bias practices, the intensity of competition decreases further. ” See: CPB response of 23 September 2010 to the public consultation on Internet and net 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Jan 7 05:20:33 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:20:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees Message-ID: Norbert is an excellent proposition. He will exert his keen sense of analysis and his open mind for problem solving. Louis On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > + one for Norbert > > > > with my best wishes for a succesful mandate > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 07/01/14 08:25 > > De : "Grace Githaiga" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Mawaki Chango" > > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Ian Peter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" > > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > > > > + 1 for Nobert. > > > > > ------------------------------ > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org > > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net > > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > > > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > > > > Cheers, > > > -- > Catherine Roy > www.catherine-roy.net > > > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on > the Executive Committee. > I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of > broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for > the BR meeting. > Thanks, > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee > > for the São Paulo meeting. > > > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that > > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single > > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document > > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would > > insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the > > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds > > of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded > > from the outset. > > > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools > > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics > > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience > > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in > > organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since > > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated > > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > > > Relevant experience includes: > > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. > > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with > > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML > > and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat > > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she > > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international > > standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". > > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of > > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. > > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes > > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced > > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to > > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: > > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > > > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > > > and 24 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > > > > > > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > > > of the > > > > > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > > > stakeholders to > > > > > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > > > success. > > > > > > > > > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > > > > > > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > > > including: defining > > > > > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > > > January 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > > > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > > > Group. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > > > or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > > > > > > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > > > suitability of candidates > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > > > individual civil society organisation(s) > > > > > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > > > multistakeholder setting > > > > > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > > > report back as the process progresses > > > > > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > > > discussions > > > > > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > > > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > > > > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > > > > > > > > > Explanation of process > > > > > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > > > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > > > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > > > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > > > this process. > > > > > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > > > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > > > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 7 05:41:38 2014 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:41:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian Peter and Colleagues, Because this event will take place in São Paulo, I wish I could give my contribution as a Brazilian citizen and researcher and disposal me to participate in one of two committees - High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. As one of the directors of the Association of Professors of Rio de Janeiro State University – ASDUERJ-UERJ, also have responsibility for this area of the event which for more than a decade I have been researching and have participated in various events. I believe that this event could contribute significantly to increase the participation of civil society in the design of a project to restructure the Internet, enabling the promotion of mechanisms that establish new perspective multistakeholder Internet governance more open and democratic. My full curriculum: http://lattes.cnpq.br/4741334327686233 Site pessoal: http://www.cibergeo.org/ Funded research in the area of the event: http://www.cibergeo.org/cms/using-joomla Coordinator of the Research Group "New Technologies to Production and Dissemination of Knowledge in Geosciences", UERJ/CNPq http://dgp.cnpq.br/buscaoperacional/detalhegrupo.jsp?grupo=03261075BKHL8Q Events on Internet Governance that participated: a) IGF in Rio de Janeiro (2007): http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/ b) II ALC (América Latina e Caribe) IGF Preparatory Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Held 11-13 August 2009, organized by LACNIC, Nupef-RITS and APC). Some lectures and papers on Information Technology, Internet, Cyberspace and Internet Governance: Barcelona-Catalunha (2004, 2008 e 2012), Santiago-Chile (2005), Irlanda-Galway (2006), Caracas-Venezuela (2007), Bogotá-Colombia (2012), Laquila-Itália (2008), Montevideo-Uruguai (2009), Buenos Aires-Argentina (2010), México-México (2012): http://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=mxVlS54AAAAJ&hl=pt-BR&oi=ao Interview with the News Agency of National University of Colombia: http://www.agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/article/hay-que-democratizar-la-internet.html Course on Internet Governance that participated: Diplofundation (2009): http://www.euromed.net/ig/display.asp?Topic=news-more/LAC-IGF-prep *Simplified Curriculum*: I have a degree in Geography from the Federal University of Pernambuco - UFPE (1984 ), did Masters in Urban Development by UFPE (1988 ) – CNPq scholarship, PhD in Geography (Human Geography ), University of São Paulo - USP (1996 ) - CNPq scholarship, Postdoc at the Universitat de Barcelona / Spain (2010-2012) - sponsored by CAPES . Currently I am professor in the Postgraduate Program of Institute of Geography and in Department of Human Geography at the Rio de Janeiro State University - UERJ, where I teach Geography of Cyberspace and Cyberspace and the Information Society, Urban Geography and Economic Geography. I'm Researcher Prociência FAPERJ / UERJ Program (1997-2015) and Research Productivity CNPq - PQ2 ( 2013-2016 ) , conducting research in the areas of : Geography of Cyberspace , Virtual Education , Internet governance and Free Software . I am one of the directors of the Association of Teachers of UERJ - ADUERJ and member of the editorial committee ADVIR- ASDUERJ and other magazines : Scripta Nova (Barcelona), Ar at cne (Barcelona), Geo UERJ (Rio de Janeiro), Intellector - CENEGRI(Rio de Janeiro), Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana - Urbe (Paraná), Boletim Gaúcho de Geografia (Porto Alegre). I worked as electronic publications editor of the Association of Brazilian Geographers (2010-2012). I was the Director of the Institute of Geography (2004-2008) and coordinated, from 2002 to 2007, the Technical Chamber of Distance Education of State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), when coordinated education courses distance - CEDERJ. I was a member of the organizing committee and the evaluation committee of the following events: 1. Rio de Janeiro/BR: XIII Simpósio Nacional de Geografia Urbana – SIMPURB, 2013 http://www.simpurb2013.com.br/ 2. Belo Horizonte/BR: XVII Encontro Nacional de Geógrafos, 2012. http://www.eng2012.org.br/ 3. Porto Alegre/BR: XVI Encontro Nacional de Geógrafos, 2010. http://www.agb.org.br/xvieng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=45 4. Rio de Janeiro/BR: I Seminário Internacional de Formação de Professores através da Educação a Distância - I SIFPEAD, 2009. Fundação Cecierj e Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching (CTLT), da Iowa State University http://www.conexaoprofessor.rj.gov.br/especial.asp?EditeCodigoDaPagina=1529 5. Barcelona/ES: VI Coloquio Internacional de Geocrítica "El Impacto Social y Espacial de las Nuevas Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación", 2004. http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/6c-prog.htm#asist 6. Goiânia/BR: VI Congresso Brasileiro de Geógrafos, 2004. http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/publicacoes/Geousp/Geousp16/N.Encontro_1.pdf 7. Rio de Janeiro/BR: X Simpósio Brasileiro de Geografia Física Aplicada, 2003. http://www.cibergeo.org/XSBGFA/ 2013/12/22 Ian Peter > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 > 2014. > > > > > > *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of > the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received > into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing > conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications > activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 > civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* 7* > January 2014*. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a > statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, > or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com(pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the > co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations > submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed > by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is > for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report > back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of > civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > *Explanation of process * > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most > active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance > space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, > Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, > and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons > are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, > with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is > imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and > so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching > out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of > the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this > process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work > in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in > place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include > refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting > forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, > such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met > with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted > for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > 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 > > -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Departamento de Geografia Humana *Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Tue Jan 7 05:44:46 2014 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 18:44:46 +0800 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 for Adam. (And only because I can't say +2.) Regards, Peng Hwa From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kabani Sent: Tuesday, 7 January, 2014 2:23 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fatima Cambronero Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees 1+ for Adam ------- About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif Stay Connected [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/facebook.png] [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/twitter.png] [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/youtube.png] [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/linkedin.png] The Blog: Internet Governance and Policy Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com ________________________________ 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. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. On 6 January 2014 10:02, Fatima Cambronero > wrote: Hi All, I also support Adam's nomination. Fatima 2014/1/5 Lee W McKnight > +1 ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Klein [nhklein at gmx.net] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:09 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees +1 Norbert Klein On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > So do I. jeanette > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >> I second Adam's nomination >> >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: >>> Hi Ian, all. >>> >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). >>> >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the >>> additional: >>> >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically >>> under-represented in global IG processes Thanks for this. >>> >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, >>> whether I shared those views or not. >>> >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years >>> of MAG are testament to that. >>> >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. >>> >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level >>> required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Just a reminder re this - nominations close midnight UTC January 7. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>>> >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >>>> committees in preparations for the "Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on Internet Governance", to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >>>> and 24 2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> * Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder HighLevel Committee (HLC) >>>> >>>> This committee will set the high level political tone and objectives >>>> of the >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>>> stakeholders to >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >>>> success. >>>> >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>>> >>>> * Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >>>> >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>>> including: defining >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>>> all communications activities pre/during/post conference. This >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 >>>> January 2014. >>>> >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >>>> Group. >>>> >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>>> or both. >>>> >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>>> suitability of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>>> multistakeholder setting >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>>> report back as the process progresses >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>>> discussions >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>>> >>>> Explanation of process >>>> >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >>>> this process. >>>> >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Fatima Cambronero Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 7 06:05:36 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:35:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nominations for the High Level Committee Message-ID: <52CBDF80.3070205@ITforChange.net> Hi Ian/ all, I will like to nominate Roberto Savio, Roberto Bissio and Sean O Siochru to be considered by the CS coordination committee for the High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Roberto Savio cv is available here Roberto Bissio cv is available here ( with some more information on his work here ) Sean O Siochru cv is available here Roberto Savio is one the foremost and senior-most global civil society activist in the area of communication and closely associated with the World Social Forum. Roberto Bissio is one of the foremost and senior-most global civil society activist in the area of development policy, and closely associated with all the UN processes on development, including the MDG plus 15 process. He also coordinates the secretariat of Social Watch, an international network of citizen organizations from around the world that report every year on how governments and international organizations implement their commitments on poverty eradication and gender equity. Sean O Siochru spear-headed the Communications Rights in the Information Society or CRIS movement, which was very prominent civil society movement during the WSIS. He is a well known communication rights activists and has worked on may development projects. I have taken their consent for this nomination. Thanks, and let me know if anything else is needed from my side. regards Guru -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC/ www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 07:08:34 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:08:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: Would be wonderful to be represented by our Brazilian liaisons.  Thanks Laura -------- Original message -------- From: Laura Tresca Date: 01/07/2014 6:03 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Dear Ian, If it´s helpful, ARTICLE 19 is based in Sao Paulo. We can temporary attend this specific meeting and report back to you. Best regards, Laura. ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org ________________________________ De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado: segunda-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2014 18:42 Para: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined.  However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention  this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anita at itforchange.net Tue Jan 7 08:15:32 2014 From: anita at itforchange.net (anita) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:45:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder Message-ID: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> Dear Ian/All I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil Society Coordination Committee. This nomination is being made jointly by: Third World Network (Malaysia) Third World Institute (Uruguay) Other News (Italy) Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) Free Software Movement India (India) IT for Change (India) I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. Thanks and regards anita -- *Anita Gurumurthy*| Executive Director IT for Change (/In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)/ 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 Email:anita at itforchange.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Parminder info.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 74918 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anita at itforchange.net Tue Jan 7 08:17:03 2014 From: anita at itforchange.net (anita) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:47:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> ,<1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> Message-ID: <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> I would also like to strongly support Norbert's candidature anita On Tuesday 07 January 2014 02:36 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > + one for Norbert > > with my best wishes for a succesful mandate > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 07/01/14 08:25 > > De : "Grace Githaiga" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Mawaki Chango" > > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Ian Peter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" > > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > > > + 1 for Nobert. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; > ian.peter at ianpeter.com; jeremy at ciroap.org > > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net > > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > > > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > > > > Cheers, > > > -- > Catherine Roy > www.catherine-roy.net > > > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > > > > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to > serve on the Executive Committee. > I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the > inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the > agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. > Thanks, > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > > > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the > Executive Committee > > for the São Paulo meeting. > > > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to > ensuring that > > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of > course a single > > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an > outcome document > > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, > but I would > > insist that it is critically important to carefully > ensure that the > > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough > that no kinds > > of perspectives, especially no civil society > perspectves, are excluded > > from the outset. > > > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended > public schools > > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied > mathematics and physics > > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical > experience > > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization > work. Active in > > organized civil society processes related to IT and the > Internet since > > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society > engagement separated > > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > > > Relevant experience includes: > > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” > (SIUG), 2006-2009. > > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society > person, with > > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge > regarding OOXML > > and some other specifications to resolve a potential > patent threat > > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so > surprised that she > > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for > international > > standards on “Document Description and Processing > Languages". > > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome > document of > > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most > of 2013. > > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. > This includes > > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the > CSTD Enhanced > > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder > constituencies to > > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection > processes: > > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > > schrieb "Ian Peter" >: > > > > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil > society on planning > > > committees in preparations for the “Global > Multistakeholder Meeting > > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo > Brazil on April 23 > > > and 24 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level > Committee (HLC) > > > > > > > > > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone > and objectives > > > of the > > > > > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global > level with > > > stakeholders to > > > > > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize > its chances of > > > success. > > > > > > > > > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society > representatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive > Committee (EC) > > > > > > > > > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of > organizing the event, > > > including: defining > > > > > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, > organizing input > > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the > conferees to > > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, > and directing > > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post > conference. This > > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is > midnight UTC 7 > > > January 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief > biography and > > > a statement of relevant background and experience in > response to this > > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com > (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the > closing date for > > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil > society networks > > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co > ordination > > > Group. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your > application whether > > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive > Committee (EC) > > > or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > > > > > > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to > assess the > > > suitability of candidates > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, > not just your > > > individual civil society organisation(s) > > > > > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other > stakeholder groups in a > > > multistakeholder setting > > > > > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society > groups and to > > > report back as the process progresses > > > > > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior > level in these > > > discussions > > > > > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues > and the range > > > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > > > > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > > > > > > > > > Explanation of process > > > > > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak > body that came > > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society > participation in > > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises > persons from > > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks > in the Internet > > > governance space, which in no particular order are the > Internet > > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the > Non Commercial > > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for > Progressive > > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia > Paque, Jeremy > > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian > Peter as an > > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is > imperfect - the > > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, > and so is the > > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are > reaching out > > > to other civil society networks to further broaden the > inclusiveness > > > of the group and have developed a draft set of > criteria to assist in > > > this process. > > > > > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching > consensus is also a > > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the > process have > > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. > These > > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each > member network > > > to consider when putting forward names for > consideration. Other > > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met > with consensual > > > support from within the group and so have not been > adopted for this > > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes > other > > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- *Anita Gurumurthy*| Executive Director IT for Change (/In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)/ 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 Email:anita at itforchange.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 08:19:20 2014 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:19:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <20140106225236.4a99b97a@quill> References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20140106225236.4a99b97a@quill> Message-ID: Hello to all and best wishes for 2014 I am fully aware of the delicacy that represents the responsibility to lead and coordinate a network as systemic and complex as the IGC. I say, confirming that Nnenna said, because I had this pressure when I had to organize sub regional forum in the Internet Governance for Central Africa in Kinshasa. Sala and you have provided the very good work, whatever the differences of opinion and polemics which arose. I am sure you still have the energy. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2014/1/6 Norbert Bollow > Hi Baudouin, > As you have probably seen, I've decided to put in an “expression of > interest” for serving on a key committee for the São Paulo meeting. > Would you be willing to reply on the governance mailing list with a > brief expression of support? I'd really appreciate that! > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:53:16 +0100 > schrieb Baudouin SCHOMBE : > > > +1 > > > > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > > *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* > > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > > > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > > skype : b.schombe > > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/11/27 Nnenna > > > > > Dear Norbert, > > > > > > As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was > > > still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on > > > this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or > > > another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some > > > listers' overbearing attitude etc > > > > > > It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the > > > moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the > > > opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: > > > > > > 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has > > > followed the WSIS and the IG issues > > > 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of > > > producing joint actions > > > 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are > > > good, qualified and have the personality to lead us > > > 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is > > > that not many can/want to step into your shoes. > > > 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, > > > emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even > > > financially. > > > > > > I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was > > > hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... > > > > > > I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the > > > question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody > > > asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still > > > believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your > > > contribution.. > > > > > > I ask that you reconsider. > > > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > > > Nnenna > > > > > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jan 7 08:25:59 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 18:55:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> -1 regards --srs (iPad) > On 07-Jan-2014, at 18:45, anita wrote: > > Dear Ian/All > > I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil Society Coordination Committee. > > This nomination is being made jointly by: > > Third World Network (Malaysia) > Third World Institute (Uruguay) > Other News (Italy) > Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) > Free Software Movement India (India) > IT for Change (India) > > I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. > > Thanks and regards > > anita > > -- > Anita Gurumurthy | Executive Director > IT for Change > (In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC) > 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 > Email:anita at itforchange.net > Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Tue Jan 7 08:26:42 2014 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:26:42 +1300 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52CC0092.2000309@internetnz.net.nz> +1 for Adam too. Cheers Keith On 7/01/2014 11:44 p.m., Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > +1 for Adam. (And only because I can’t say +2.) > > Regards, > > Peng Hwa > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Kabani > *Sent:* Tuesday, 7 January, 2014 2:23 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fatima Cambronero > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > 1+ for Adam > > > ------- > > About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif > > *Stay Connected* > > Facebook Twitter > Youtube > LinkedIn > > > *The Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* > > Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live > > Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. > > On 6 January 2014 10:02, Fatima Cambronero > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I also support Adam's nomination. > > Fatima > > > 2014/1/5 Lee W McKnight > > > +1 > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] on behalf of Norbert > Klein [nhklein at gmx.net ] > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:09 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > +1 > > Norbert Klein > > > > On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > So do I. jeanette > > > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > >> I second Adam's nomination > >> > >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: > >>> Hi Ian, all. > >>> > >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society > >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). > >>> > >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the > >>> additional: > >>> > >>> 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically > >>> under-represented in global IG processes > Thanks for this. > > >>> > >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along > >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS > >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of > >>> the IGF. Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list > >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work. I was a > >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF. In both these > >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported > >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, > >>> whether I shared those views or not. > >>> > >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able > >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years > >>> of MAG are testament to that. > >>> > >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional > >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very > >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other > >>> stakeholders. > >>> > >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet > >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in > >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and > >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. > >>> > >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF > >>> meetings. I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of > >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic > >>> necessities. I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will > >>> be expected to do. I am experienced at working at the senior level > >>> required. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy. Adam has been > >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development > >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the > >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and > >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese > >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United > >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on > >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > >>> Japan (IUJ). Full CV on request. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. > >>>> > >>>> From: Ian Peter > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM > >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > >>>> > >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > >>>> and 24 2014. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > >>>> > >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > >>>> of the > >>>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > >>>> stakeholders to > >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > >>>> success. > >>>> > >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > >>>> > >>>> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > >>>> > >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > >>>> including: defining > >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > >>>> January 2014. > >>>> > >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending > the appointment of a replacement IGC > >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > >>>> Group. > >>>> > >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > >>>> or both. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> CRITERIA > >>>> > >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > >>>> suitability of candidates > >>>> > >>>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) > >>>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > >>>> multistakeholder setting > >>>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > >>>> report back as the process progresses > >>>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > >>>> discussions > >>>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues > >>>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > >>>> > >>>> Explanation of process > >>>> > >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > >>>> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > >>>> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > >>>> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > >>>> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > >>>> this process. > >>>> > >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > >>>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > >>>> > >>>> Ian Peter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > */Fatima Cambronero/* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ > > *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 09:14:36 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:44:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> ,<1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> I too strongly support Norbert's candidature. In fact, in preference to my own... Now, if this is not too complex a deal for the selecting committee to understand and undertake, I suggest the following: That the committee considers Norbert's name in preference to mine, and *if* he is selected for the executive committee, I will consider myself, and those nominating me, represented. However if he is not being selected, *my nomination stands*.... Request, not to make any mistake on this :) . Same for the High Level Committee about Roberto Savio, Sean O Siochru and Roberto Bissio (and Louis Pouzin, if as Daniel indicated, he is being considered). *If* any of these are being selected for the HL Committee, I have no desire to be considered. But again, if they are not, *my nomination stands*... Hoping that this makes the task of the committee simpler, which is the intention, rather than make it more complex. parminder On Tuesday 07 January 2014 06:47 PM, anita wrote: > I would also like to strongly support Norbert's candidature > > anita > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 02:36 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> + one for Norbert >> >> with my best wishes for a succesful mandate >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 07/01/14 08:25 >> > De : "Grace Githaiga" >> > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Mawaki Chango" >> > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Ian Peter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" >> > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> > >> > >> + 1 for Nobert. >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com; jeremy at ciroap.org >> > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net >> > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 >> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> > >> > >> I also support Norbert's candidacy. >> >> > >> Cheers, >> >> > -- >> Catherine Roy >> www.catherine-roy.net >> >> > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to >> serve on the Executive Committee. >> I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the >> inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the >> agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. >> Thanks, >> >> > >> Mawaki >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> > >> >> Jeremy and Ian and all, >> > >> > this is an expression of interest to serve on the >> Executive Committee >> > for the São Paulo meeting. >> > >> > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to >> ensuring that >> > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting >> will be >> > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of >> course a single >> > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an >> outcome document >> > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, >> but I would >> > insist that it is critically important to carefully >> ensure that the >> > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough >> that no kinds >> > of perspectives, especially no civil society >> perspectves, are excluded >> > from the outset. >> > >> > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended >> public schools >> > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied >> mathematics and physics >> > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical >> experience >> > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization >> work. Active in >> > organized civil society processes related to IT and the >> Internet since >> > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society >> engagement separated >> > clearly from the topics of business interests. >> > >> > Relevant experience includes: >> > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” >> (SIUG), 2006-2009. >> > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society >> person, with >> > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge >> regarding OOXML >> > and some other specifications to resolve a potential >> patent threat >> > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so >> surprised that she >> > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to >> this.) >> > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for >> international >> > standards on “Document Description and Processing >> Languages". >> > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome >> document of >> > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. >> > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most >> of 2013. >> > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple >> IGFs. This includes >> > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for >> the CSTD Enhanced >> > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder >> constituencies to >> > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection >> processes: >> > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > >> > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 >> > schrieb "Ian Peter" > >: >> > >> >> > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil >> society on planning >> > > committees in preparations for the “Global >> Multistakeholder Meeting >> > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo >> Brazil on April 23 >> > > and 24 2014. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level >> Committee (HLC) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This committee will set the high ­level political >> tone and objectives >> > > of the >> > > >> > > conference. Committee members will engage on a >> global level with >> > > stakeholders to >> > > >> > > encourage participation in the conference and >> maximize its chances of >> > > success. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This committee will include 4 civil society >> representatives. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive >> Committee (EC) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, >> > > including: defining >> > > >> > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, >> organizing input >> > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the >> conferees to >> > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, >> and directing >> > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post >> conference. This >> > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest >> is midnight UTC 7 >> > > January 2014. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a >> brief biography and >> > > a statement of relevant background and experience in >> response to this >> > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >> > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> (pending the appointment >> of a replacement IGC >> > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the >> closing date for >> > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil >> society networks >> > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co >> ordination >> > > Group. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your >> application whether >> > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive >> Committee (EC) >> > > or both. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > CRITERIA >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The following factors (among others) will be used to >> assess the >> > > suitability of candidates >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, >> not just your >> > > individual civil society organisation(s) >> > > >> > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other >> stakeholder groups in a >> > > multistakeholder setting >> > > >> > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society >> groups and to >> > > report back as the process progresses >> > > >> > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a >> senior level in these >> > > discussions >> > > >> > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues >> and the range >> > > of civil society perspectives on these issues >> > > >> > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and >> creatively >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Explanation of process >> > > >> > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak >> body that came >> > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society >> participation in >> > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises >> persons from >> > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks >> in the Internet >> > > governance space, which in no particular order are >> the Internet >> > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the >> Non Commercial >> > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for >> Progressive >> > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia >> Paque, Jeremy >> > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian >> Peter as an >> > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is >> imperfect - the >> > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, >> and so is the >> > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we >> are reaching out >> > > to other civil society networks to further broaden >> the inclusiveness >> > > of the group and have developed a draft set of >> criteria to assist in >> > > this process. >> > > >> > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching >> consensus is also a >> > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the >> process have >> > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. >> These >> > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each >> member network >> > > to consider when putting forward names for >> consideration. Other >> > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >> > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met >> with consensual >> > > support from within the group and so have not been >> adopted for this >> > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes >> other >> > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> > > >> > > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- > > *Anita Gurumurthy*| Executive Director > IT for Change > (/In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)/ > 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 > Email:anita at itforchange.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > /Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net > > > / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Tue Jan 7 09:17:11 2014 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:17:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> <455B1CC7-65E5-4884-AB97-4FB111302B24@glocom.ac.jp> <20140103113040.GA32762@hserus.net> <52C6B2EE.70309@wzb.eu> <52CA025B.6020103@gmx.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CF519@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <504219928.16328.1389104231594.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c10> + 1 for Adam ! and a creative new year 2014 for all of us on this list Divina > Message du 07/01/14 11:45 > De : "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Kabani" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > +1 for Adam. (And only because I can’t say +2.)   Regards, Peng Hwa   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kabani > Sent: Tuesday, 7 January, 2014 2:23 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fatima Cambronero > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees   1+ for Adam   ------- About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif   Stay Connected        The Blog: Internet Governance and Policy Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit:  http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com       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. > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.   On 6 January 2014 10:02, Fatima Cambronero wrote: Hi All, > > I also support Adam's nomination. > > Fatima > > >     2014/1/5 Lee W McKnight +1 > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Klein [nhklein at gmx.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:09 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > +1 > > Norbert Klein > > > > On 1/3/2014 7:54 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > So do I. jeanette > > > > Am 03.01.14 12:30, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > >> I second Adam's nomination > >> > >> Adam Peake [03/01/14 20:23 +0900]: > >>> Hi Ian, all. > >>> > >>> I'm putting my name forward for consideration as a civil society > >>> representative on the Multi-stakeholder Executive Committee (EC). > >>> > >>> I hope my experience satisfies most of the criteria including the > >>> additional: > >>> > >>> 7.      Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically > >>> under-represented in global IG processes > Thanks for this. > > >>> > >>> I was coordinator of the IGC during the Tunis phase of WSIS and along > >>> with my colleagues was able to successfully bring a broad range of CS > >>> points of view into the process that eventually saw the creation of > >>> the IGF.  Easier times as we had the WSIS civil society plenary list > >>> and "family" to reach out to, but it still took hard work.  I was a > >>> member of the MAG for the first two years of the IGF.  In both these > >>> roles I hope people will remember that I consulted widely, reported > >>> regularly and tried to be fair when representing the views of others, > >>> whether I shared those views or not. > >>> > >>> I am experienced in working with other stakeholder groups, and am able > >>> to persuade others of CS positions; WSIS Tunis and the first two years > >>> of MAG are testament to that. > >>> > >>> As a volunteer in IGF and ICANN activities, as well as my professional > >>> work and teaching, I know Internet governance issues well, have a very > >>> good understanding of CS positions and also the positions of other > >>> stakeholders. > >>> > >>> I live and work in Japan, but my experience of working on Internet > >>> governance/policy is much broader; example I have been involved in > >>> organizing and supporting the East Africa IGF (2008, '09, '10) and > >>> Asia Pacific regional IGF. > >>> > >>> I have been a consultant for the IGF Secretariat at five IGF > >>> meetings.  I understand the complexities of organizing the agendas of > >>> multi-stakeholder processes, and something of the diplomatic > >>> necessities.  I've had experience doing many of the tasks the EC will > >>> be expected to do.  I am experienced at working at the senior level > >>> required. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > >>> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > >>> on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy.  Adam has been > >>> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development > >>> of the Internet since the mid-1990s.  He is an expert on the > >>> development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and > >>> applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese > >>> corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United > >>> States, Europe, Africa and Asia.  Adam teaches a short course on > >>> Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > >>> Japan (IUJ).  Full CV on request. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. > >>>> > >>>> From: Ian Peter > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM > >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > >>>> > >>>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > >>>> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > >>>> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > >>>> and 24 2014. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> • Committee No. 1:  Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > >>>> > >>>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > >>>> of the > >>>> conference.  Committee members will engage on a global level with > >>>> stakeholders to > >>>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > >>>> success. > >>>> > >>>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > >>>> > >>>> • Committee No. 3:  Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > >>>> > >>>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > >>>> including: defining > >>>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > >>>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > >>>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > >>>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > >>>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > >>>> January 2014. > >>>> > >>>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > >>>> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > >>>> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > >>>> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > >>>> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > >>>> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > >>>> Group. > >>>> > >>>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > >>>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > >>>> or both. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> CRITERIA > >>>> > >>>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > >>>> suitability of candidates > >>>> > >>>> 1.      Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > >>>> individual civil society organisation(s) > >>>> 2.      Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > >>>> multistakeholder setting > >>>> 3.      Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > >>>> report back as the process progresses > >>>> 4.      Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > >>>> discussions > >>>> 5.      Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > >>>> of civil society perspectives on these issues > >>>> 6.      Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > >>>> > >>>> Explanation of process > >>>> > >>>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > >>>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > >>>> several nominating processes.  It currently comprises persons from > >>>> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > >>>> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > >>>> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > >>>> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > >>>> Communications.  The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > >>>> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > >>>> independent facilitator.  Its current composition is imperfect - the > >>>> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > >>>> scope of "Internet governance".  In particular, we are reaching out > >>>> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > >>>> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > >>>> this process. > >>>> > >>>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > >>>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > >>>> been put in place since the group's first nomination.  These > >>>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > >>>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > >>>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > >>>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > >>>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > >>>> nomination.  However, the coordinating group welcomes other > >>>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > >>>> > >>>> Ian Peter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Fatima Cambronero > Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es  > > Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/  > > Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 7 10:00:57 2014 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:00:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017001cf0bb9$45a06ab0$d0e14010$@benjemaa@planet.tn> +1 for Norbert ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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 : pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] De la part de Louis Pouzin (well) Envoyé : mardi 7 janvier 2014 11:21 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK Cc : Norbert Bollow Objet : [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees Norbert is an excellent proposition. He will exert his keen sense of analysis and his open mind for problem solving. Louis On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: + one for Norbert with my best wishes for a succesful mandate Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 07/01/14 08:25 > De : "Grace Githaiga" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Mawaki Chango" > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Ian Peter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > + 1 for Nobert. > > _____ CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; jeremy at ciroap.org > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > Cheers, > -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee. I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. Thanks, > Mawaki > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee > for the São Paulo meeting. > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would > insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds > of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded > from the outset. > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in > organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > Relevant experience includes: > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML > and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international > standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > > and 24 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > > > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > > of the > > > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > > stakeholders to > > > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > > success. > > > > > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > > > > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > > > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > > including: defining > > > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > > January 2014. > > > > > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > > a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > > Group. > > > > > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > > or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > > suitability of candidates > > > > > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > > individual civil society organisation(s) > > > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > > multistakeholder setting > > > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > > report back as the process progresses > > > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > > discussions > > > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > > of civil society perspectives on these issues > > > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > > > > > Explanation of process > > > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > > to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > > of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > > this process. > > > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > > to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Tue Jan 7 10:27:48 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:27:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > (and Louis Pouzin, if as Daniel indicated, he is being considered) I would like to confirm that Mr. Pouzin did finally accept my nomination for HLC and have sent directly to Ian his candidature file. I do consider that a balanced couple/ticket (Louis, Norbert) for (HLC, ExecCom) could (re)present appropriately the vision of a large and inclusive group of civil society players around Internet Governance issues and an efficient manner to convey that vision, in terms of concrete subjects, into the coming Brasil process. I would like then to motivate around to support both Louis and Norbert. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 10:36:35 2014 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:36:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: I support Norbert! On Jan 7, 2014 3:26 AM, "Kivuva" wrote: > I also endorse Norbert's nomination. He's a trusted pair of hands and > an asset to the community. > > On 07/01/2014, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > + 1 for Nobert. > > > > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; > > jeremy at ciroap.org > > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net > > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > > I also support Norbert's candidacy. > > Cheers, > > --Catherine Roywww.catherine-roy.net > > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to serve on > the > > Executive Committee.I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring > the > > inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the agenda setting > > exercise for the BR meeting. > > > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > > Jeremy and Ian and all, > > > > > > > > this is an expression of interest to serve on the Executive Committee > > > > for the São Paulo meeting. > > > > > > > > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to ensuring that > > > > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting will be > > > > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of course a single > > > > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an outcome document > > > > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, but I would > > > > insist that it is critically important to carefully ensure that the > > > > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough that no kinds > > > > of perspectives, especially no civil society perspectves, are excluded > > > > from the outset. > > > > > > > > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended public schools > > > > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied mathematics and physics > > > > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical experience > > > > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization work. Active in > > > > organized civil society processes related to IT and the Internet since > > > > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society engagement separated > > > > clearly from the topics of business interests. > > > > > > > > Relevant experience includes: > > > > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” (SIUG), 2006-2009. > > > > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society person, with > > > > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge regarding OOXML > > > > and some other specifications to resolve a potential patent threat > > > > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so surprised that she > > > > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to this.) > > > > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for international > > > > standards on “Document Description and Processing Languages". > > > > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome document of > > > > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. > > > > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most of 2013. > > > > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple IGFs. This includes > > > > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for the CSTD Enhanced > > > > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder constituencies to > > > > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection processes: > > > > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 > > > > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > > > > > >> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > > > >> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > > >> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > > > >> and 24 2014. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > > > >> of the > > > >> > > > >> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > > > >> stakeholders to > > > >> > > > >> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > > > >> success. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > > > >> including: defining > > > >> > > > >> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > > > >> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > > > >> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > > > >> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > > > >> committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 > > > >> January 2014. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and > > > >> a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this > > > >> topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to > > > >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC > > > >> representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for > > > >> nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks > > > >> will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination > > > >> Group. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > > > >> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > > > >> or both. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> CRITERIA > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > > > >> suitability of candidates > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > > > >> individual civil society organisation(s) > > > >> > > > >> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > > > >> multistakeholder setting > > > >> > > > >> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to > > > >> report back as the process progresses > > > >> > > > >> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > > > >> discussions > > > >> > > > >> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range > > > >> of civil society perspectives on these issues > > > >> > > > >> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Explanation of process > > > >> > > > >> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > > > >> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > > > >> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from > > > >> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > > > >> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > > > >> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > > > >> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > > > >> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > > > >> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > > > >> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > > > >> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > > > >> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out > > > >> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness > > > >> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in > > > >> this process. > > > >> > > > >> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > > > >> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > > > >> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > > > >> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network > > > >> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > > > >> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > > > >> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > > > >> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > > > >> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > > > >> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > > >> > > > >> Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Tue Jan 7 11:11:57 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:11:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_J?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?anuary_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> Message-ID: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ Dear All, There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's committees. _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. Thanks for your support. Local Organizing Group/CGI.br BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 7 11:26:46 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:26:46 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Thanks very much Hartmut, this is very helpful. I would like to make a formal request to the LOG and the CS liaisons that a strategy for remote participation be given priority on the agenda. I am interested in being involved in this strategy and implementation. Thanks! Ginger On 7 January 2014 10:11, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:31:49 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:31:49 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_P?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Please, clarify who are the "representatives of 1Net". Thank you, Carolina On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks very much Hartmut, this is very helpful. > > I would like to make a formal request to the LOG and the CS liaisons that > a strategy for remote participation be given priority on the agenda. I am > interested in being involved in this strategy and implementation. > > Thanks! > Ginger > > > On 7 January 2014 10:11, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >> >> *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jan 7 11:32:16 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:32:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Dear Glaser, Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning meetings? At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back to it's constituencies. As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. all the best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon researcher Center for Technology and Society Fundação Getulio Vargas PGP 0x016B8E73 On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:35:23 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:35:23 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_P?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: + 1 on Joana's email. And since Joana and Laura were part of the temporary CS liaison appointees for the 1Net back in the IGF, and since they are in Brazil, it is crucial to have them in the meeting. I expect that Adiel, who will be in this meeting, agree and support that. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Glaser, > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the > steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning > meetings? > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the > various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives > from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back > to it's constituencies. > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying to > create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives > for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling > elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way > forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are > not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this > process. > > all the best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > researcher > Center for Technology and Society > Fundação Getulio Vargas > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >> >> *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Tue Jan 7 11:42:06 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:42:06 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CC2E5E.20102@cgi.br> Ginger, This point is on our agenda. Hartmut ================================= On 1/7/14 2:26 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks very much Hartmut, this is very helpful. > > I would like to make a formal request to the LOG and the CS liaisons > that a strategy for remote participation be given priority on the > agenda. I am interested in being involved in this strategy and > implementation. > > Thanks! > Ginger > > > On 7 January 2014 10:11, Hartmut Richard Glaser > wrote: > > > _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From olgacavalli at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:46:10 2014 From: olgacavalli at gmail.com (Olga Cavalli) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:46:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BIGFmaglist=5D_Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Dear Hartmut, Happy new year! Many thaks for the update. How are the government representatives involved in this fist meeting? It is a meeting only with the 1Net for the organization of all the committees? Best regards and thanks Olga 2014/1/7 Hartmut Richard Glaser > > *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 7 11:47:56 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:17:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bdiscuss=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CC2FBC.9040804@itforchange.net> Dear Hartmut, Thanks for the clarification. I request a further clarification. What is this 1Net that you are having this privileged discussion about organising the Brazil meeting with? I am on the 1Net's own list where I am told that 1Net is yet nothing other than what the yet to be constituted steering committee of the 1Net will decide it to be. However, LOG seems to have a very clear and strong view of the 1Net, to plan an exclusive discussion with it, quoting your email below " to sort out relevant details related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's committees". (At least tell us, who is that you discuss things with when you say you discuss something with 1Net?) I understand that the enclosed letter signed by key civil society organisations was handed over to LOG long back, where civil society groups say very clearly that they will like to directly deal with LOG (and, although the letter was polite enough not to use the name, the contextual meaning clearly was, "not be dealt with through the 1Net"). It also put forward its interim Liaisons, with a specific request that they be invited to every meeting in relation to organising the Brazil meeting. In the circumstances, I request clarification why this request of major civil society networks was entirely ignored, and the yet (supposedly) unclear and undefined 1Net is being given this extremely privileged position. We have no problem with whoever else LOG deals with, but if civil society groups asked to be dealt with directly, and in a certain well-described way, it would have been best if that request was acceded to. The least that is required is to be informed why is it not being acceded to. Thanks, and wishing you the best in the very important and intense work that you and LOG are involved with. parminder On Tuesday 07 January 2014 09:41 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Joint civil society letter Brazil Meeting.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 134978 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:52:15 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:52:15 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > > I would like then to motivate around to support both Louis and Norbert. > I'm happy to lend my full support to this pair. mawaki > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > believed to be clean. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jan 7 12:10:10 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:10:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BChapter-delegates=5D_=5BIGFm?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aglist=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CC34F2.1040701@cafonso.ca> I do hope it will NOT be a "fist meeting"! :) Happy New Year, Olga (a little late, but there is still time...). [] fraterno --c.a. On 01/07/2014 02:46 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote: > Dear Hartmut, > Happy new year! > Many thaks for the update. > How are the government representatives involved in this fist meeting? > It is a meeting only with the 1Net for the organization of all the > committees? > Best regards and thanks > Olga > > > > 2014/1/7 Hartmut Richard Glaser > >> >> *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society > Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 7 12:26:44 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 18:26:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Call_for_Nominations_-_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Brazil_=C2=A0committees?= In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <537114713.30324.1389115604849.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> Daniel wrote Message du 07/01/14 16:30 > De : "Daniel Pimienta" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > (and Louis Pouzin, if as Daniel indicated, he is being considered) I would like to confirm that Mr. Pouzin did finally accept my nomination for HLC and have sent directly to Ian his candidature file. > > I do consider that a balanced couple/ticket (Louis, Norbert) for (HLC, ExecCom) could (re)present appropriately the vision of a large and inclusive group of civil society players around Internet Governance issues and an efficient manner to convey that vision, in terms of concrete subjects, into the coming Brasil process. > I would like then to motivate around to support both Louis and Norbert. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 13:20:46 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:20:46 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_P?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Net?= In-Reply-To: <97BC0C58-03AF-43DE-A9D0-EEE6C36CED89@afrinic.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <97BC0C58-03AF-43DE-A9D0-EEE6C36CED89@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Who is "/1net steercom" reps pls? On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can > attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. > > - a. > On 2014-01-07, at 20:35 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > > + 1 on Joana's email. And since Joana and Laura were part of the > temporary CS liaison appointees for the 1Net back in the IGF, and since > they are in Brazil, it is crucial to have them in the meeting. I expect > that Adiel, who will be in this meeting, agree and support that. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > Dear Glaser, > > > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the > steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning > meetings? > > > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the > various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives > from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back > to it's constituencies. > > > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying > to create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives > for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling > elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way > forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are > not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this > process. > > > > all the best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > researcher > > Center for Technology and Society > > Fundação Getulio Vargas > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser > wrote: > > > > URGENT INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION > > > > Dear All, > > > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, > between the > > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out > relevant details > > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of > the meeting's > > committees. > > > > > > This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's > process, > > since > > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the > nominations from all > > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > > > Thanks for your support. > > > > > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > > > > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IRP mailing list > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 7 13:23:09 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 19:23:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <9762B8C3-153C-4015-9BAA-F672459AC4AA@theglobaljournal.net> Dear Hartmut, I do share the concern of Parminder on this information. Could it be possible to know: - the name of the representatives of 1net in that Jan 10 meeting? - How were they designated as representatives? - In what capacity do they intervene, and with which mandate, given by who? We all know that IG is related to Democracy, ethics, and rebalancing the US asymmetric role within the current IG state - all of that following President Rousseff declaration at the UN, and being the official topic of the upcoming conference in Brazil. Therefore it seems to be of primary importance to understand if things happen according to any specific rule, order, governance, coordination. It would be nice not to avoid any manipulation in that process. - Who is right now at the wheel of the ghosty 1net - the ICANN and the other I-stars? Correct? - Why is it that Brazil or the local organizing group play with 1net when 1net is still a very undefined 'thing'? And as 1net is a non relevant 'thing', one wonders how Brazil will be able to claim any 'honesty', 'legitimacy', bending of such an undefined object. Specially is other governments are to be invited (still waiting for the list to be announced). All of that is really surprising. Would it be that another masquerade will take place in Brazil, keeping the statusquo quo? Many are ready to blame the UN system and governmental organizations for their so called behind-closed-doors meetings, but is this the way things will happen in Brazil in a conference organized by ICANN (ant the other I*) and Brazil. Thanks for explaining us what's going on, if you have the ability to tell us. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 7 janv. 2014 à 17:11, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit : > > URGENT INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's process, since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From adiel at afrinic.net Tue Jan 7 13:17:54 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 22:17:54 +0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_P?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <97BC0C58-03AF-43DE-A9D0-EEE6C36CED89@afrinic.net> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. - a. On 2014-01-07, at 20:35 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > + 1 on Joana's email. And since Joana and Laura were part of the temporary CS liaison appointees for the 1Net back in the IGF, and since they are in Brazil, it is crucial to have them in the meeting. I expect that Adiel, who will be in this meeting, agree and support that. > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Glaser, > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning meetings? > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back to it's constituencies. > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. > > all the best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > researcher > Center for Technology and Society > Fundação Getulio Vargas > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > URGENT INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > > This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's process, > since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Tue Jan 7 13:26:39 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:26:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BIGFmaglist=5D_Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CC46DF.50901@cgi.br> Hi Olga, Very happy New Year to you too ...! At this meeting we expect to discuss local details, logistic, infrastructure, equipments, etc. and some other details, but no other government representatives will be present. best Hartmut =============================== On 1/7/14 2:46 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote: > Dear Hartmut, > Happy new year! > Many thanks for the update. > How are the government representatives involved in this first meeting? > It is a meeting only with the 1Net for the organization of all the > committees? > Best regards and thanks > Olga > > > > 2014/1/7 Hartmut Richard Glaser > > > > _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 13:57:20 2014 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 21:57:20 +0300 Subject: Fw: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian: I would like to put my name forward for Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). I believe that the experience I have gained as a MAG member for the global IGF as well as participating in many activities within the IGF itself allows me to contribute constructively to the work of Multistakeholder High­Level Committee. Furthermore, the efforts I was involved in to initiate and launch the Arab IGF is similar to a great extent to the nature of this committee and although it was on a regional level it can be extended to global level. I believe that the role of civil society for this particular conference should not be limited to state its views and reflect its positions but also to to ensure that every stakeholder's views and interest is included in a balanced manner with a focus on what is best for the Internet user. Furthermore, I support Adam's nomination for the Executive Committee. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti Kuwait Information Technology Society On Friday, January 3, 2014, Ian Peter wrote: > Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7. > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 > 2014. > > > > > > *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of > the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received > into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing > conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications > activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 > civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* 7* > January 2014*. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a > statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, > or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com(pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the > co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations > submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed > by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is > for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report > back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of > civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > *Explanation of process * > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most > active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance > space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, > Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, > and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons > are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, > with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is > imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and n > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Tue Jan 7 15:56:23 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:56:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_J?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?anuary_10th_=282=2E=29?= In-Reply-To: <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> Message-ID: <52CC69F7.3050404@cgi.br> *To follow-up on the earlier communication, to clarify* Initially the meeting on the 10th was intended to be for the planning committees in relation to the BR Meeting. However, the late notice of course doesn't enable all to identify let alone schedule to participate. This will be a meeting about logistics&infrastructure. As a result though, LOG welcome someone from 1Net to participate and would ask that the steering committee identify a participant. The main focus of this meeting is to discuss issues related to the local organization of the event, aspects related to the infrastructure and details of financial resources needed to prepare the event. This meeting will NOT discuss issues related to Internet Governance and/or other themes. *============================================================================ *Dear All, There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's committees. This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's process, since they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. Thanks for your support. Local Organizing Group/CGI.br BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 17:08:02 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:08:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination - Joana Varon Message-ID: Dear all, I just want to be sure the name of Joana Varon from Brazil is considered among the nominations. She has been a crucial person in this process. Best, Carolina -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 18:16:53 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:16:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] BR meeting site launched Message-ID: The "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance" meeting in Brazil: April 23-24 2014. http://brmeeting.br Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 19:04:06 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:04:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fw: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <875FF685CAA54426AB2D2DB8D19D2CA9@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1389139446.14891.YahooMailNeo@web121401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 for Adam   Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideas 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, January 7, 2014 10:58 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: Dear Ian: I would like to put my name forward for Committee No. 1:  Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). I believe that the experience I have gained as a MAG member for the global IGF as well as participating in many activities within the IGF itself allows me to contribute constructively to the work of Multistakeholder High­Level Committee. Furthermore, the efforts I was involved in to initiate and launch the Arab IGF is similar to a great extent to the nature of this committee and although it was on a regional level it can be extended to global level. I believe that the role of civil society for this particular conference should not be limited to state its views and reflect its positions but also to to ensure that every stakeholder's views and interest is included in a balanced manner with a focus on what is best for the Internet user. Furthermore, I support Adam's nomination for the Executive Committee. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti Kuwait Information Technology Society On Friday, January 3, 2014, Ian Peter wrote: Just a reminder re this – nominations close midnight UTC January 7.  >From: Ian Peter >Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:41 PM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >  This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. >  >  >• Committee No. 1:  Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) >  >This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the >conference.  Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to >encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. >  >This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >  >• Committee No. 3:  Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) >  >This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining >conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference.  This committee will include 2 civil society representatives >  >  >  >The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7January 2014. >  >If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC  representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. >  >Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. >  >  >CRITERIA >  >The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates >  >1.      Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) >2.      Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting >3.      Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses >4.      Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions >5.      Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues >6.      Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >  >Explanation of process >  >The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes.  It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications.  The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator.  Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and n ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 19:07:03 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:07:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1389139623.1254.YahooMailNeo@web121401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 for Parminder   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, January 7, 2014 5:26 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: -1 regards --srs (iPad) On 07-Jan-2014, at 18:45, anita wrote: Dear Ian/All I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil Society Coordination Committee. This nomination is being made jointly by: Third World Network (Malaysia) Third World Institute (Uruguay) Other News (Italy) Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) Free Software Movement India (India) IT for Change (India) I enclose details about  Parminder for this purpose. Thanks and regards anita -- Anita Gurumurthy| Executive Director IT for Change (In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC) 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 Email:anita at itforchange.net ________________________________ Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 19:49:01 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:49:01 +1100 Subject: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees Message-ID: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, please let me know urgently. I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. Candidates are listed in no particular order. Ian Peter Committee 1 – HLC 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jovan Kurbalija 3. Marilia Maciel 4. Carolina Rossini 5. Dom Robinson 6. Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE 7. Nikhil Agarwal 8. Prof Antoine KANTIZA 9. Shawn Powers, Ph.D 10. Akiinremi Peter Taiwo 11. Dr. Lutfor Rahman 12. Limei Liu 13. Luzia Silva 14. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 15. Marwa Hamed 16. Enock Othin 17. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 18. Laura Tresca 19. John Selby 20. Arturo Bregaglio 21. Birgitta Jonsdottir 22. Danil Kerimi 23. Stephanie Perrin 24. Mark Rotenberg 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Grigori Saghyan 27. Joana Varon 28. Louis Pouzin 29. Hindenburgo Pires 30. Qusai AlShatti 31. Roberto Savio 32. Roberto Bissio 33. Sean O Siochru Committee 3 – EC 1. Marilia Maciel 2. Carolina Rossini 3. Dom Robinson 4. Nadira Araj 5. Nikhil Agarwal 6. Limei Liu 7. Luzia Silva 8. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 9. Marwa Hamed 10. Enock Othin 11. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 12. Claver NIGARURA 13. Laura Tresca 14. John Selby 15. Birgitta Jonsdottir 16. Danil Kerimi 17. Stephanie Perrin 18. Mark Rotenberg 19. Sonigitu Ekpe 20. Grigori Saghyan 21. Joana Varon 22. Adam Peake 23. Norbert Bollow 24. Hindenburgo Pires -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 19:54:01 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:54:01 +1100 Subject: REVISED Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <6F56627F4FC34CB19F4C8F923FA048D1@Toshiba> Oops – a second after sending I realised name of Parminder Singh was left of both lists. Apologies for that and I hope I have the rest right. Revised list attached From: Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, please let me know urgently. I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. Candidates are listed in no particular order. Ian Peter Committee 1 – HLC 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jovan Kurbalija 3. Marilia Maciel 4. Carolina Rossini 5. Dom Robinson 6. Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE 7. Nikhil Agarwal 8. Prof Antoine KANTIZA 9. Shawn Powers, Ph.D 10. Akiinremi Peter Taiwo 11. Dr. Lutfor Rahman 12. Limei Liu 13. Luzia Silva 14. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 15. Marwa Hamed 16. Enock Othin 17. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 18. Laura Tresca 19. John Selby 20. Arturo Bregaglio 21. Birgitta Jonsdottir 22. Danil Kerimi 23. Stephanie Perrin 24. Mark Rotenberg 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Grigori Saghyan 27. Joana Varon 28. Louis Pouzin 29. Hindenburgo Pires 30. Qusai AlShatti 31. Roberto Savio 32. Roberto Bissio 33. Sean O Siochru 34. Parminder Singh Committee 3 – EC 1. Marilia Maciel 2. Carolina Rossini 3. Dom Robinson 4. Nadira Araj 5. Nikhil Agarwal 6. Limei Liu 7. Luzia Silva 8. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 9. Marwa Hamed 10. Enock Othin 11. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 12. Claver NIGARURA 13. Laura Tresca 14. John Selby 15. Birgitta Jonsdottir 16. Danil Kerimi 17. Stephanie Perrin 18. Mark Rotenberg 19. Sonigitu Ekpe 20. Grigori Saghyan 21. Joana Varon 22. Adam Peake 23. Norbert Bollow 24. Hindenburgo Pires 25 Parminder Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 7 23:30:07 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:00:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Meeting_i?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?n_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th_=282=2E=29?= In-Reply-To: <52CC69F7.3050404@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC69F7.3050404@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CCD44F.1020503@itforchange.net> Dear Hartmut, Thanks for the clarification. In the circumstances, will it be possible for the 3 civil society liaisons to the Brazil meeting, appointed by a few prominent civil society networks, to also attend the meeting. Just to get civil society views in and also to keep us posted. I once again point to the civil society letter I has enclosed with yesterday's email which requested Brazilian organisers to keep our 3 civil society liaisons posted on all matters, and to invite them to all meetings. If 1Net, a yet unclear entity, can attend, so I hope can civil society representatives. Please do let us know. Thanks and best regards parminder On Wednesday 08 January 2014 02:26 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > *To follow-up on the earlier communication, to clarify* > > Initially the meeting on the 10th was intended to be for the planning committees in relation > to the BR Meeting. However, the late notice of course doesn't enable all to identify let alone > schedule to participate. This will be a meeting about logistics&infrastructure. As a result though, > LOG welcome someone from 1Net to participate and would ask that the steering committee > identify a participant. > > The main focus of this meeting is to discuss issues related to the local organization of the event, > aspects related to the infrastructure and details of financial resources needed to prepare the > event. This meeting will NOT discuss issues related to Internet Governance and/or other themes. > *============================================================================ > > *Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's process, since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 23:45:01 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:45:01 +1200 Subject: [governance] Notice on IGC Elections for Coordinators Message-ID: Dear All, This is a quick update to advise that in the not too distant future you will receive ballot papers for the elections in your emails. Thank you for your patience. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 7 23:50:54 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:50:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] Notice on IGC Elections for Coordinators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <373456C8469B46E2B061D10BE12E0EB9@Toshiba> Thanks Sala, glad to hear this! can you advise who the full list of candidates are? (just want to be sure the late nominations are included) Ian Peter From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 3:45 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Notice on IGC Elections for Coordinators Dear All, This is a quick update to advise that in the not too distant future you will receive ballot papers for the elections in your emails. Thank you for your patience. Kind Regards, Sala -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 00:28:16 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52CCE1F0.2020202@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 06:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) > and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, > Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, > please let me know urgently. > > I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, > and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for > EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and > the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin > Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . > > Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no > longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be > administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. > Ian, Probably you did not read this part from Hartmut's recent message "We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work." So, better work with at least 12th or 13th deadline. Parminder > Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. > Candidates are listed in no particular order. > > Ian Peter > > Committee 1 – HLC > > 1.Milton Mueller > > 2.Jovan Kurbalija > > 3.Marilia Maciel > > 4.Carolina Rossini > > 5.Dom Robinson > > 6.Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE > > 7.Nikhil Agarwal > > 8.Prof Antoine KANTIZA > > 9.Shawn Powers, Ph.D > > 10.Akiinremi Peter Taiwo > > 11.Dr. Lutfor Rahman > > 12.Limei Liu > > 13.Luzia Silva > > 14.Nawfal Al-Hadeethi > > 15.Marwa Hamed > > 16.Enock Othin > > 17.NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert > > 18.Laura Tresca > > 19.John Selby > > 20.Arturo Bregaglio > > 21.Birgitta Jonsdottir > > 22.Danil Kerimi > > 23.Stephanie Perrin > > 24.Mark Rotenberg > > 25.Sonigitu Ekpe > > 26.Grigori Saghyan > > 27.Joana Varon > > 28.Louis Pouzin > > 29.Hindenburgo Pires > > 30.Qusai AlShatti > > 31.Roberto Savio > > 32.Roberto Bissio > > 33.Sean O Siochru > > Committee 3 – EC > > 1.Marilia Maciel > > 2.Carolina Rossini > > 3.Dom Robinson > > 4.Nadira Araj > > 5.Nikhil Agarwal > > 6.Limei Liu > > 7.Luzia Silva > > 8.Nawfal Al-Hadeethi > > 9.Marwa Hamed > > 10.Enock Othin > > 11.NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert > > 12.Claver NIGARURA > > 13.Laura Tresca > > 14.John Selby > > 15.Birgitta Jonsdottir > > 16.Danil Kerimi > > 17.Stephanie Perrin > > 18.Mark Rotenberg > > 19.Sonigitu Ekpe > > 20.Grigori Saghyan > > 21.Joana Varon > > 22.Adam Peake > > 23.Norbert Bollow > > 24.Hindenburgo Pires > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 8 00:41:42 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:41:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20140108064142.4862ce4a@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no > longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be > administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. I believe Hartmut wrote not long ago that he expects the selection process to be compete, and the committees able to start their work, by January 15. So I would request the coordination group not to “take a couple of weeks”. 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 Wed Jan 8 00:41:49 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:41:49 +1100 Subject: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CCE1F0.2020202@itforchange.net> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> <52CCE1F0.2020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <17800CE165CB4E58B2D0595F1DB28BD5@Toshiba> Thanks Parminder, glad you brought that to our attention. From: parminder Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:28 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees On Wednesday 08 January 2014 06:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, please let me know urgently. I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. Ian, Probably you did not read this part from Hartmut's recent message "We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work." So, better work with at least 12th or 13th deadline. Parminder Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. Candidates are listed in no particular order. Ian Peter Committee 1 – HLC 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jovan Kurbalija 3. Marilia Maciel 4. Carolina Rossini 5. Dom Robinson 6. Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE 7. Nikhil Agarwal 8. Prof Antoine KANTIZA 9. Shawn Powers, Ph.D 10. Akiinremi Peter Taiwo 11. Dr. Lutfor Rahman 12. Limei Liu 13. Luzia Silva 14. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 15. Marwa Hamed 16. Enock Othin 17. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 18. Laura Tresca 19. John Selby 20. Arturo Bregaglio 21. Birgitta Jonsdottir 22. Danil Kerimi 23. Stephanie Perrin 24. Mark Rotenberg 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Grigori Saghyan 27. Joana Varon 28. Louis Pouzin 29. Hindenburgo Pires 30. Qusai AlShatti 31. Roberto Savio 32. Roberto Bissio 33. Sean O Siochru Committee 3 – EC 1. Marilia Maciel 2. Carolina Rossini 3. Dom Robinson 4. Nadira Araj 5. Nikhil Agarwal 6. Limei Liu 7. Luzia Silva 8. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 9. Marwa Hamed 10. Enock Othin 11. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 12. Claver NIGARURA 13. Laura Tresca 14. John Selby 15. Birgitta Jonsdottir 16. Danil Kerimi 17. Stephanie Perrin 18. Mark Rotenberg 19. Sonigitu Ekpe 20. Grigori Saghyan 21. Joana Varon 22. Adam Peake 23. Norbert Bollow 24. Hindenburgo Pires -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 01:12:52 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:42:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> Hi Hartmut, With regard to you recent clarifications: It does not at all appear from the below report that 1Net meets LOG for banal logistics tasks (which too I am not clear what locus standi they have for). Things like "It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting." make it quite clear that extremely important substantive decisions are being taken together by LOG and 1Net, unless there is an element of mis-reporting in the below report, which I have no reason to suspect. One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what legitimacies.... This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared ownership and all such things.... Thanks, parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:55:46 -0500 From: Carolina Rossini To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Adiel Akplogan* > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org " > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- *Carolina Rossini* /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 8 01:54:19 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:54:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. > > Carolina > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >> >> - a. Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: Rafik Dammak Anriette Esterhuysen Anja Kovacs Vladimir Radunovik Joana Varon Marilia Maciel as back-up. Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. Adam > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > Thanks, parminder > > > >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> -- >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 05:08:57 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:08:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. Who are the Organizers? Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. Who are the other governments participating? No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) - ICANN representatives? - Others? ... (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. We don not know about other names. Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. Thanks in advance JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >> > > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. > > Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: > > >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>> >>> - a. > > > > Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: > > Rafik Dammak > Anriette Esterhuysen > Anja Kovacs > Vladimir Radunovik > Joana Varon > > Marilia Maciel as back-up. > > Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? > > We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. > > Adam > > > >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 05:15:01 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:15:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <2D1031F2-DFD9-4C34-8232-D7DAB9EF4479@gmail.com> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email brmeeting at cgi.br (same @cgi.br as Hartmut's) This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. Who are the Organizers? Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. Who are the other governments participating? No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) - ICANN representatives? - Others? ... (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. We don not know about other names. Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. Thanks in advance JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >> > > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. > > Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: > > >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>> >>> - a. > > > > Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: > > Rafik Dammak > Anriette Esterhuysen > Anja Kovacs > Vladimir Radunovik > Joana Varon > > Marilia Maciel as back-up. > > Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? > > We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. > > Adam > > > >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Jan 8 06:36:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:36:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was between LOG and ICANN. Louis - - - On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Hartmut, > > [...] > One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what > legitimacies.... > > This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared > ownership and all such things.... > > Thanks, parminder > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM > Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > To: "discuss at 1net.org" > > Hello all, > > I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update * meeting > between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last > Friday. *Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: > > [..] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 8 06:51:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:51:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, anita wrote: > Dear Ian/All > > I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive > Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil > Society Coordination Committee. > > + 1 Louis > > This nomination is being made jointly by: > > Third World Network (Malaysia) > Third World Institute (Uruguay) > Other News (Italy) > Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) > Free Software Movement India (India) > IT for Change (India) > > I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. > > Thanks and regards > > anita > > -- > > *Anita Gurumurthy* | Executive Director > IT for Change > (*In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)* > 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 > Email:anita at itforchange.net > ------------------------------ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 07:26:46 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:56:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: > > It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting > was between LOG and ICANN. > > Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think > 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders > (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. parminder > > I like to be corrected if otherwise? > > Cheers! > > Louis > - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > Hi Hartmut, > > [...] > > One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, > and on what legitimacies.... > > This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally > shared ownership and all such things.... > > Thanks, parminder > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Adiel Akplogan* > > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM > Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > To: "discuss at 1net.org " > > > > Hello all, > > I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update > *meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's > LOG and ICANN last Friday. *Here are some key points discussed > during the meeting: > > [..] > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > / > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 8 09:14:43 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:14:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Indeed, indeed, Parminder! The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal and the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. 1net is an ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived WCIT but not Snowden. Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting during last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first reluctant to the 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and its chapters if you only think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons were discussed. It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience that 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of legitimacy to ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing and menu, in order to keep as much as possible the asymmetry acceptable. It is also a bright move to try to bring back as many civil society voices under a I-stars overview/control. But some elements of the international civil society are not governable from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are located). 1net has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the 1net, the High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to take the IGF down to a not-able venue - We the French have made a word with the not-able, les notables, the ones having the impression that they are the important guys around. No one better than a notable can keep a status quo safe. Notables are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their aficionados. ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US entity, even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea is to shift civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN umbrella, an umbrella being revamped as some sort of International organization (IO). Even though it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN would be an embarrassment to any initiative coming from or endorsed by a multilateral, or international law related, oriented body. The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more funds, and that the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. This UN-WSIS venue is today functioning with a miserable budget, even in comparison to the ICANN communication budget, or the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and its selling of domains with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial condition, the IGF has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show some good face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it fair to associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And make sure that everyone confuses the UN with them. Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some more $ as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote location whether in California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss and blunder. We all remember that a few notables agreed to be paid for their personal views over IG when attending the London High level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks ago. What was the budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be happy to get this money to investigate more about the financial practice over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "Tout va bien madame la marquise"? It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions from many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. Enough will soon be enough JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 13:26, parminder a écrit : > > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was between LOG and ICANN. >> >> Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET > > I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... > > I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. > > parminder > >> >> I like to be corrected if otherwise? >> >> Cheers! >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Hartmut, >> >> [...] >> >> One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what legitimacies.... >> >> This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared ownership and all such things.... >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Adiel Akplogan >> Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM >> Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation >> To: "discuss at 1net.org" >> >> Hello all, >> >> I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: >> >> [..] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 10:12:09 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:42:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> I remember reading somewhere that ICANN has a board decision/ document about the logic of the lead up to the Brazil meeting but that was kept secret.... Is it out now... Or is it purely my imagination, in which case my apologies.. parminder On Wednesday 08 January 2014 08:37 PM, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Superb, and true. > Louis > - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal > wrote: > > Indeed, indeed, Parminder! > > > The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA > scandal and the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric > domination. 1net is an ICANN idea and since then has been pushed > by ICANN. It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo > statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public > information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars > meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the > I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 > CEOs part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the > bottom line of the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the > crisis!). They survived WCIT but not Snowden. > > Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting > during last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first > reluctant to the 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and > its chapters if you only think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other > reasons were discussed. > > It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience > that 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of > legitimacy to ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing > and menu, in order to keep as much as possible the asymmetry > acceptable. It is also a bright move to try to bring back as many > civil society voices under a I-stars overview/control. But some > elements of the international civil society are not governable > from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are located). 1net > has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN > 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - > even though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, > the 1net, the High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that > converge to take the IGF down to a not-able venue - We the French > have made a word with the not-able, /les notables/, the ones > having the impression that they are the important guys around. No > one better than a /notable/ can keep a status quo safe. /Notables/ > are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by > nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their /aficionados/. > > ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US > entity, even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea > is to shift civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN > umbrella, an umbrella being revamped as some sort of International > organization (IO). Even though it would be a fake IO, this new > ICANN would be an embarrassment to any initiative coming from or > endorsed by a multilateral, or international law related, oriented > body. > > The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF > capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves > more funds, and that the I-stars should think about giving to the > IGF. This UN-WSIS venue is today functioning with a miserable > budget, even in comparison to the ICANN communication budget, or > the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and its selling of domains > with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial condition, the IGF > has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show some good > face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and > others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't > it fair to associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. > And make sure that everyone confuses the UN with them. > > Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some > more $ as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote > location whether in California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss > and blunder. We all remember that a few notables agreed to be paid > for their personal views over IG when attending the London High > level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks ago. What was the > budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be happy to > get this money to investigate more about the financial practice > over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and > miners. Or launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. > > So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "/Tout va > bien madame la marquise/"? > > It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate > reactions from many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of > ICANN et al. > > Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. > > Enough will soon be enough > > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 13:26, parminder a écrit : > >> >> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>> > wrote: >>> >>> It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The >>> meeting was between LOG and ICANN. >>> >>> Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't >>> think 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various >>> Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was >>> between LOG and 1NET >> >> I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where >> 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to >> the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it >> can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may >> want it to become... >> >> I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and >> co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. >> And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of >> Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and >> have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established >> civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting >> space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net >> itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever >> has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil >> meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, >> whether we like it or not. >> >> parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Jan 8 10:15:57 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:15:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: Superb, and true. Louis - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > >> Indeed, indeed, Parminder! >> >> >> The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal and >> the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. 1net is an >> ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is amusing to note >> that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings >> has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! >> The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures >> the I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs >> part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of >> the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived WCIT >> but not Snowden. >> >> Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting during >> last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first reluctant to the >> 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and its chapters if you only >> think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons were discussed. >> >> It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience that >> 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of legitimacy to >> ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing and menu, in order to >> keep as much as possible the asymmetry acceptable. It is also a bright move >> to try to bring back as many civil society voices under a I-stars >> overview/control. But some elements of the international civil society are >> not governable from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are >> located). 1net has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN >> 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even >> though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the 1net, the >> High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to take the IGF down >> to a not-able venue - We the French have made a word with the not-able, *les >> notables*, the ones having the impression that they are the important >> guys around. No one better than a *notable* can keep a status quo safe. >> *Notables* are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by >> nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their *aficionados*. >> >> ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US entity, >> even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea is to shift >> civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN umbrella, an >> umbrella being revamped as some sort of International organization (IO). >> Even though it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN would be an embarrassment >> to any initiative coming from or endorsed by a multilateral, or >> international law related, oriented body. >> >> The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF >> capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more funds, >> and that the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. This UN-WSIS >> venue is today functioning with a miserable budget, even in comparison to >> the ICANN communication budget, or the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and >> its selling of domains with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial >> condition, the IGF has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show >> some good face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and >> others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it fair to >> associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And make sure that >> everyone confuses the UN with them. >> >> Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some more $ >> as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote location whether in >> California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss and blunder. We all remember >> that a few notables agreed to be paid for their personal views over IG when >> attending the London High level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks >> ago. What was the budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be >> happy to get this money to investigate more about the financial practice >> over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or >> launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. >> >> So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "*Tout va bien >> madame la marquise*"? >> >> It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions from >> many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. >> >> Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. >> >> Enough will soon be enough >> >> JC >> >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 8 11:40:30 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:40:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: + 1 Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2014/1/8 Louis Pouzin (well) > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, anita wrote: > >> Dear Ian/All >> >> I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive >> Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil >> Society Coordination Committee. >> >> + 1 > Louis > >> >> This nomination is being made jointly by: >> >> Third World Network (Malaysia) >> Third World Institute (Uruguay) >> Other News (Italy) >> Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) >> Free Software Movement India (India) >> IT for Change (India) >> >> I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. >> >> Thanks and regards >> >> anita >> >> -- >> >> *Anita Gurumurthy* | Executive Director >> IT for Change >> (*In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)* >> 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 >> Email:anita 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 12:34:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 23:04:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release In-Reply-To: <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> <529524AD.801@apc.org> <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52CD8C28.8060105@itforchange.net> Forwarding an old email exchange to refresh civil society memories, that seem to rapidly turning short. This was the situation Nov end.. So what happened? Someone need to tell us. Civil society cannot be taken for granted... parminder On Wednesday 27 November 2013 04:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures have > direct access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. > > And please forgive us for the elementary translation error in the press > release. Of course we meant "governance principles", not "government > principles". The original in Portuguese is correct. > > The best way to reach the commission by email is to write to info at cgi.br > for now (if you wish, please cc. or cco. to me). We should have a more > specific email soon. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/26/2013 08:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Thank you very much for this c.a. >> >> Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about >> civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage >> constructively with CGI.br? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release >>> regarding the Brazil Meeting. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> =============== >>> November 26th 2013 >>> >>> Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the >>> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance >>> >>> President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the >>> Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals >>> on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian >>> initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet >>> Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São >>> Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and >>> international entities representing the different sectors involved with >>> Internet governance. >>> >>> The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and >>> representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about >>> Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to >>> pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to >>> improve their institutional framework. >>> >>> The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, >>> academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and >>> business communities. >>> >>> “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for >>> its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global >>> Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder >>> opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued >>> prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at >>> AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. >>> >>> President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, >>> Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary >>> for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. >>> >>> “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss >>> new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the >>> importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said >>> Professor Virgílio Almeida. >>> >>> Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s >>> success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, >>> which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the >>> communications. >>> >>> The four meeting committees are: >>> >>> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the >>> political articulation and fostering the involvement of the >>> international community. >>> >>> 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the >>> event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the >>> treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; >>> >>> 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing >>> every logistic aspect of the meeting; >>> >>> 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments >>> which want to contribute to the meeting. >>> >>> The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the >>> global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of >>> the global community will be established. >>> >>> E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br >>> >>> =========== >>> >>> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 13:08:40 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:08:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: ... It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. Jean-Christophe - Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - >From 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. From: • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives etc. Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.massit at orange.fr Wed Jan 8 13:28:05 2014 From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?fran=E7oise?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:28:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11661CC8-F42F-4164-B807-9DA64FBCC920@orange.fr> +1 FMF Le 8 janv. 14 à 16:15, Louis Pouzin (well) a écrit : > Superb, and true. > Louis > - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > Indeed, indeed, Parminder! > > > The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal > and the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. > 1net is an ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is > amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the > existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a > very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not > publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. "We didn't > want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs part of the I- > stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of the > Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived > WCIT but not Snowden. > > Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting > during last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first > reluctant to the 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and > its chapters if you only think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons > were discussed. > > It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience > that 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of > legitimacy to ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing > and menu, in order to keep as much as possible the asymmetry > acceptable. It is also a bright move to try to bring back as many > civil society voices under a I-stars overview/control. But some > elements of the international civil society are not governable from > the US, (when they exist and wherever they are located). 1net has > also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN 'thing'. > 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even > though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the > 1net, the High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to > take the IGF down to a not-able venue - We the French have made a > word with the not-able, les notables, the ones having the impression > that they are the important guys around. No one better than a > notable can keep a status quo safe. Notables are usually > conservatives (of their status and advantages) by nature. A little > bit like the I-stars and their aficionados. > > ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US > entity, even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea > is to shift civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN > umbrella, an umbrella being revamped as some sort of International > organization (IO). Even though it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN > would be an embarrassment to any initiative coming from or endorsed > by a multilateral, or international law related, oriented body. > > The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF > capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more > funds, and that the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. > This UN-WSIS venue is today functioning with a miserable budget, > even in comparison to the ICANN communication budget, or the ISOC > large revenues thank to PIR and its selling of domains > with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial condition, the IGF > has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show some good > face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and > others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it > fair to associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And > make sure that everyone confuses the UN with them. > > Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some > more $ as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote > location whether in California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss > and blunder. We all remember that a few notables agreed to be paid > for their personal views over IG when attending the London High > level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks ago. What was the > budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be happy to get > this money to investigate more about the financial practice over > inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or > launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. > > So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "Tout va > bien madame la marquise"? > > It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions > from many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. > > Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. > > Enough will soon be enough > > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t Françoise Massit-Folléa f.massit at orange.fr Mob. 06 74 51 67 65 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 8 14:15:16 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:15:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> John, My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> ... >> It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - > > From >> 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting >> >> Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. > > From: >> • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN >> – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s >> – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives > > etc. > > Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations > have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. > Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about > their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, > and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 8 14:33:20 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 06:33:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> Hi Jean- Christophe, One correction to your excellent summary Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. Ian Peter From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM To: Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. Who are the Organizers? Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. Who are the other governments participating? No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) - ICANN representatives? - Others? ... (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. We don not know about other names. Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. Thanks in advance JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Dear folks, Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. Carolina Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. - a. Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: Rafik Dammak Anriette Esterhuysen Anja Kovacs Vladimir Radunovik Joana Varon Marilia Maciel as back-up. Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. Adam Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. Thanks, parminder So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan -- Carol (in my personal capacity) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 14:35:42 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:35:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> Message-ID: <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > Hi Jean- Christophe, > > One correction to your excellent summary > > Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) > > The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) > > The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM > To: Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br > Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). > > A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: > ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG > > So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) > > When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. > > This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? > > From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. > > Who are the Organizers? > Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... > > Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? > One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? > > Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? > Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. > > For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". > > Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? > After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. > Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. > > *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. > > Who are the other governments participating? > No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. > > Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? > - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. > - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br > - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). > - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) > - ICANN representatives? > - Others? > ... > (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) > > Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) > - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. > - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) > - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) > * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. > > Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? > This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). > The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. > For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. > We don not know about other names. > > > Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? > LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. > The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. > Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting > Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) > > Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill > ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views > ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants > * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. > > The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. > > Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. > > Thanks in advance > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> Dear folks, >>>> >>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>> >>> Carolina >>> >>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>> >> >> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >> >> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>> >>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>> >>>> - a. >> >> >> >> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: >> >> Rafik Dammak >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Anja Kovacs >> Vladimir Radunovik >> Joana Varon >> >> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >> >> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? >> >> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>> >>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>> >>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>> >>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>> >>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 14:45:45 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:45:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given the Montevideo Statement) However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim. > Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur of any country) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 14:50:02 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:50:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:43, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit : > I’m confused. What “grouping” are you stating is under a “direct mandate” of the “US trade department”? > > Greg Shatan > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:15 PM > To: John Curran > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser > Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > John, > > My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. > > Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. > > JC > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > ... > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - > > From > 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting > > Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. > > From: > • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN > – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s > – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives > > etc. > > Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations > have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. > Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about > their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, > and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > * * * > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 15:21:38 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. Wow. I am actually not even sure how to respond to the above given the layers of error but obviously must start somewhere - ICANN does have a NTIA contract to perform "IANA Functions.", which includes the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols. ICANN also has an MOU with the IAB/IETF (RFC 2860) to carry out certain tasks, consisting of the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols. That is actually two mandates; both are specifically applicable to the IANA tasks. The IANA tasks are a very small part of ICANN, and trying to point to the IANA contract as a USG "link" to ICANN's greater overall activities make no sense. Yes, there is a Affirmation of Commitments that has effect on ICANN's activities, and a GAC that has impact, but the IANA contract itself doesn't provide useful control (except under the "nuclear" option of its cancelation) The I* leader coordination meetings have no mandate, patronage, or funding from the USG. In fact, they've been convened generally by Lynn St. Amour of ISOC, with each participant picking up travel and related costs. You might as well assert that both IGF and UN also come under the USG's patronage as a result of ICANN's contribution... And finally, none of the above relates to "1net", which may have be consequential to the Montevideo Statement, but in fact will determine its purpose and methods once it has a seated coordinating/steering committee. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 15:21:41 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:21:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi John, On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: > > ... > > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence > of these meetings has now become a public information - a > very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized > before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past > have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see > fit, e.g. - Plus some of us see where you fly, who you eat with eat and drink with, etc., via social media, so Montevideo was no secret in that regard. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 8 15:21:48 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> ,<52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2D1E4B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, "simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings" has been happening since there's been e-lists. Creating a virtual community can be a big thing, a little thing, or nothing. In the 1net case, what exactly 'it' is may be unclear still for some time as the clock unwinds to and beyond the Brazil meeting. Speaking as one not yet on the list, and hence not in the latest virtual club, I too am suspicious of a club that would have me. ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 7:26 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Louis Pouzin (well); <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was between LOG and ICANN. Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. parminder I like to be corrected if otherwise? Cheers! Louis - - - On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder > wrote: Hi Hartmut, [...] One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what legitimacies.... This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared ownership and all such things.... Thanks, parminder ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: [..] _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 8 15:26:10 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:26:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> Message-ID: Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:45, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. > > You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you > mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given > the Montevideo Statement) We agree on this > > However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very > existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim. What Lynn Saint Amour said is that these meetings were not publicized on purpose. A rather odd strategy of communication in a world that claims transparency against all behind-the-doors meetings by others. The point to know if there was a public information available or not is not really the point. The point is the 'intention'. The will behind a situation. This is what is so important in LSA statement. On the contrary, implying that there was a public information available, and that the very existence of these meetings was known from the public is a specious disclaim. :-) > >> Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. > > Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting > together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur > of any country) Again, such regular meetings can be named whatever one wishes to, the coordination done during these meetings is not about the size of the fonts on your respective websites. When discussing which strategy is to defined in reaction to the WCIT or NSA trust IG crisis (part of the asymmetric situation we are all dealing with), and then coming up with a publicized or not publicized idea such as the 1net, is exactly what a governing body is about: think and make decision in order to act upon events and people. In the open or in the hidden. At this stage we have no information if other 'ideas' had emerged from these meetings. Maybe yes, maybe no. By the way, I find the I-stars naming really cool. I prefer it to the G20 naming. I hope you had a good drink over this one. The Internet Stars!! No offense John. JC Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor The Global Project > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 8 16:02:03 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:02:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> Message-ID: John, Le 8 janv. 2014 à 21:21, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. > > Wow. I am actually not even sure how to respond to the above given the layers > of error but obviously must start somewhere - *Thanks for the effort but I am actually not even sure I was trying to detail all the functions, links, etc you kindly describe below. The ICANN/IANA mention is plain enough for all of us to understand what I am talking about. Do not need more than 3 words. > > ICANN does have a NTIA contract to perform "IANA Functions.", which includes > the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols. You bring precision thanks, but you do not contradict the link I was mentioning. You reinforce it. And by the way the link is still there. > > ICANN also has an MOU with the IAB/IETF (RFC 2860) to carry out certain > tasks, consisting of the administration of various registries of parameter values > for Internet protocols. > > That is actually two mandates; both are specifically applicable to the IANA tasks. Same comment* > > The IANA tasks are a very small part of ICANN, and trying to point to the IANA > contract as a USG "link" to ICANN's greater overall activities make no sense. > Yes, there is a Affirmation of Commitments that has effect on ICANN's activities, > and a GAC that has impact, but the IANA contract itself doesn't provide useful > control (except under the "nuclear" option of its cancelation) Same comment* > > The I* leader coordination meetings have no mandate, patronage, or funding from > the USG. In fact, they've been convened generally by Lynn St. Amour of ISOC, with > each participant picking up travel and related costs. You might as well assert that > both IGF and UN also come under the USG's patronage as a result of ICANN's > contribution... Do you mean that the I-stars have no active part in the asymmetric role of the 'US' over IG? (I am pretty convinced that the I-stars meeting are paid directly by the organizers. Don't need to call in the USG unless your fundings have not been properly organized in agreement with who it may concerns. Also pretty sure that no of you had to pay from his own personal pocket as well. That would be outrageous. Even though some of us do sometime put from their own money in a cause that resonates with the global common good. We must be a little crazy I presume. I would not put in your mouth words that you haven't pronounced or even thought loudly. So I give you back your sentence about "...both IGF and UN ..." > > And finally, none of the above relates to "1net", which may have be consequential > to the Montevideo Statement, but in fact will determine its purpose and methods > once it has a seated coordinating/steering committee. May I suggest that this comment is wrong? And not just a little wrong. The 1net was obviously discussed among the I-stars before the statement was issued. 1net was a pre-statement idea. You do not launch such an idea without an overall idea regarding budget, strategy, project leaders, global timing, advantages, dangers, feasibility... The timing of the announcement can be described as following the meeting. If it was consequential, I doubt that such professionals folks like the I-stars CEOs would have signed for it without any previous strategical agreement and consensus. The critical idea is not about the details of how it will function. The critical idea is its existence, and the 'political' objective. You can leave the logistics, the steering committee to the troopers and their officers. FYG as well. JC Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor The Global Project > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 17:39:22 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:39:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:45, John Curran a écrit : On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given the Montevideo Statement) We agree on this However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim. What Lynn Saint Amour said is that these meetings were not publicized on purpose. A rather odd strategy of communication in a world that claims transparency against all behind-the-doors meetings by others. The point to know if there was a public information available or not is not really the point. The point is the 'intention'. The will behind a situation. This is what is so important in LSA statement. On the contrary, implying that there was a public information available, and that the very existence of these meetings was known from the public is a specious disclaim. We agree that there was public information about the meetings, but not a high-level of public awareness of these meetings before the Montevideo Statement. As CEO of ARIN, I have lots of meetings with other organizations; this is generally to coordinate aspects of various activities that have mutual involvement. The fact that I meet with leaders from ICANN, or ISOC, or the IAB is quite routine, as there is quite a bit of routine inter-organizational coordination required in maintenance of the IANA registries. Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur of any country) Again, such regular meetings can be named whatever one wishes to, the coordination done during these meetings is not about the size of the fonts on your respective websites. When discussing which strategy is to defined in reaction to the WCIT or NSA trust IG crisis (part of the asymmetric situation we are all dealing with), and then coming up with a publicized or not publicized idea such as the 1net, is exactly what a governing body is about: think and make decision in order to act upon events and people. In the open or in the hidden. At this stage we have no information if other 'ideas' had emerged from these meetings. Maybe yes, maybe no. You keep missing the point that the I* meetings between the various leaders are a _coordination meeting_; there is no applicable governance over the involved organizations. Each of the Internet organizations have their own decision making processes and community of interest. For example, in the case of ARIN, the thinking about what ARIN's position in such matters was done long before the I* meeting (as a result of discussions with ARIN community), and is reflected on our web site and in our past statements on these matters. As the discussion and Montevideo Statement had a high-level of overlap with ARIN's existing positions, I had the ARIN Board confirm our agreement with the position and then signed the statement. The meetings can't "make a decision" on behalf of anybody, at best they can find existing commonality of views and positions among the parties. By the way, I find the I-stars naming really cool. I prefer it to the G20 naming. I hope you had a good drink over this one. The Internet Stars!! No offense John. I believe it emerged as short-hand for referencing a set of organizations that predominantly begin with the letter "I" [ISOC, ICANN, IAB, IANA, etc.], with "*" being used in typical pattern matching context. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 8 17:52:50 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 04:22:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> Message-ID: <97F084B3-E52D-4EE7-88C7-7334D2556BDE@hserus.net> That is not at all clear given some of the claims you have here on this thread. Can you please go back and take the trouble to actually read what John said? --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 2:32, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > > *Thanks for the effort but I am actually not even sure I was trying to detail all the functions, links, etc you kindly describe below. The ICANN/IANA mention is plain enough for all of us to understand wha > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 18:24:08 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:24:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > -1 In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! -- 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Jan 8 18:27:12 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:27:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1389223632.54265.YahooMailNeo@web121403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 for Parminder  Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 3:25 PM, McTim wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > -1 In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jan 8 19:11:18 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:41:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <1389223632.54265.YahooMailNeo@web121403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <1389223632.54265.YahooMailNeo@web121403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <894639F7-3B44-4A8F-8260-B3174CCB3002@hserus.net> You are of course entitled to your opinion. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 4:57, shaila mistry wrote: > > +1 for Parminder > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > President > Stem Institute > Transforming Ideals into Action > > President > JAYCO MMI > Input Technology With A Human Touch > > www.jaycopanels.com > Tel: 951 738 2000 > > MWOSB > > The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > > On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 3:25 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > -1 > > > > In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jan 8 20:08:23 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:08:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> Message-ID: <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> -1 > > In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a bit cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? Thanks, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jan 8 20:29:19 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 06:59:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> Essentially parminder yelling quite a lot at some people in the room, Avri in particular felt physically threatened. With a co co in the room then, he should have been ejected from the caucus, not nominated to stand for this or any other post where he would represent the interests of civil society. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 6:38, David Conrad wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> -1 >> >> In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! > > For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a bit cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? > > Thanks, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 8 20:38:27 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:38:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> On 08-Jan-14 20:08, David Conrad wrote: > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> -1 >> >> In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! > > For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a bit cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? > > Thanks, > -drc > Sure. The short version. Parminder was verbally aggressive with several people during the meeting. Some walked out. I objected. He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). More people walked out, including me. The meeting continued, I heard. After the meeting, I appealed to the co-coordinators of the IGC to do something about this. The appeal was never formally responded to, though I did get some updates on ongoing discussions. In the meantime, while I still lurk on this list, for the most part I decided to avoid participation until such time as my appeal was ruled on. 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 20:46:16 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:46:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Sala wrote a report of the meeting which she sent to the list. I will find it and forward it. Deirdre On 8 January 2014 21:08, David Conrad wrote: > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > >> -1 > > > > In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! > > For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a bit > cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? > > Thanks, > -drc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jan 8 20:47:32 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:17:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: Which co co inaction in that case is, by the way, why I have not voted for Norbert either, along with the fact of his having been endorsed by parminder. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 7:08, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > >> On 08-Jan-14 20:08, David Conrad wrote: >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>>> -1 >>> >>> In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! >> >> For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a bit cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? >> >> Thanks, >> -drc > > Sure. The short version. > > Parminder was verbally aggressive with several people during the meeting. > Some walked out. > I objected. > > He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me > (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). > More people walked out, including me. > > The meeting continued, I heard. > > After the meeting, I appealed to the co-coordinators of the IGC to do something about this. > > The appeal was never formally responded to, though I did get some updates on ongoing discussions. > > In the meantime, while I still lurk on this list, for the most part I decided to avoid participation until such time as my appeal was ruled on. > > 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 Wed Jan 8 20:48:35 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:18:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <1890C599-CF8C-410C-AC58-26A79C717BE2@hserus.net> A very bald report if I remember right, just mentioning that some members walked out. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 7:16, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Sala wrote a report of the meeting which she sent to the list. I will find it and forward it. > Deirdre > > >> On 8 January 2014 21:08, David Conrad wrote: >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: >> >> -1 >> > >> > In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! >> >> For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a bit cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 20:50:57 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:50:57 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The meeting report. Deirdre ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: 8 November 2013 10:12 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Meeting Minutes To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Apologies, I regret the inconvenience, had attached the document. Sala On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Apologies for the delay. I was stranded in Hong Kong for almost a week > after I missed a flight. This is the final version of the minutes with the > corrections and edits that people sent. This is the corrected final version. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >> with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Meeting Minutes - Final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16426 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 21:46:39 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 02:46:39 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > > This is important because if the "Lynn and 11 CEOs" meetings were not for you MSist governance, what you call MS globalization is actually a more stringent coalition that formalize in three steps: > > 1. august 29, 2012. OpenStand statement about the Normative coalition paradigm. > 2. october 7, 2013 Montevideo statement about the Cooperation coalition.pardigm. > ... You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, ARIN is not a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or precondition) of the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Jan 8 22:01:56 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:31:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they could make it in person. Will let you know as soon as there is a response. Best, Anja On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > > Hi Jean- Christophe, > > One correction to your excellent summary > > *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee (BI SC)* > > The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a > different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja > Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) > > The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days > ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical > community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a > longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM > *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil > Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; > igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons > for the mess (not always but...). > > A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand > it now, its title might be: > *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* > > *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my > information to the listings)* > > When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the > purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are > available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious > issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, > and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release > dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In > the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The > last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. > In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. > > This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil > lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level > of concern? > > From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. > > *Who are the Organizers?* > Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see > Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... > > *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet > Conference?* > One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 > additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? > > *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* > Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "*Brazilian > Internet Steering Committee*". This committee is not per say Brazilian as > it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be > a *US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee*, or an *ICANN and BRAZIL > Internet Steering Committee*. > > For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is > the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the > meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It > seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND > the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see > below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". > > *Who are the Representatives for all IG > participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the > multistakeholder story)?* > After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC > (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a > "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, > too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a > multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when > this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, > no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) > is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the > current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it > was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to > endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. > Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation > would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder > conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. > > *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers > will be able to share a feeling of participation. > > *Who are the other governments participating?* > No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low > 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as > most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through > the I*. > > *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)?* > - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. > - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br > - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the > umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). > - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America > Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana > and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) > - ICANN representatives? > - Others? > ... > (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI > SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting > website) > > *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee (BI SC)* > - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering > committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, > Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel > but we haven't seen his answer yet. > - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in > the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette > Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already > in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal > feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed > something here) > - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society > network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) > * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member > at the BI SC. > > *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare > the event under the BI SC overview?* > This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite > clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement > with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). > The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection > committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected > will be sent to the BI SC for approval. > For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL > and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. > We don not know about other names. > > > *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting?* > LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering > committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments > representatives are expected. > The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the > meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for > the event. > Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include > other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting > Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 > civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 > meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) > > Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill > ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all > circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views > ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants > * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the > mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not > too demanding. > > The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 > committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report > back as the process progresses > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of > civil society perspectives on these issues > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of > information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute > to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. > > Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time > on this. > > Thanks in advance > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Dear folks, > > > Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks > in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations > with CGI. > > > Carolina > > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The > point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering > all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover > (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be > such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting > there if not already there. > > > > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. > > Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss > list: > > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > > I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps > can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the > LOC. > > > - a. > > > > > Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have > steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of > committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering > committee members: > > Rafik Dammak > Anriette Esterhuysen > Anja Kovacs > Vladimir Radunovik > Joana Varon > > Marilia Maciel as back-up. > > Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But > there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. > And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short > notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. > Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? > > We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be > in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, > let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. > > Adam > > > > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to > us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent > civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this > arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* > what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to > the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to > be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite > inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly > delayed even after this decision.) > > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep > us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be > invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not > share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case > the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep > CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened > since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. > Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a > member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been > officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with > CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to > speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked > for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to > any of our requests.... > > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking > accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you > all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this > somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > > Thanks, parminder > > > > > So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email > if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan > > > -- > > Carol (in my personal capacity) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Wed Jan 8 22:11:20 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 23:11:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in that event, so why are they reporting about it? When I read: >He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no >contact, but i felt physically threatened). I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from the outside. However. Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this personal situation. Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), coming from my mediterranean culture. Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange situatrons... and to cool down. Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an IGF event? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jan 8 22:55:49 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:25:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: Thank you, Daniel. Let us say that, from my perspective, Avri is someone I know and trust for years before I was involved with this caucus. If she says she felt physically threatened by Parminder's behavior, I implicitly trust her statement. I am glad you agree with me there, from your email. Also - please remember, I am from India, as is Parminder. And I hope I have exposure to multiple other cultures : mediterranean, european, australian (where 'you bastard' is a term of endearment among friends, or so a gross generalization says) etc, to recognize domineering behavior - which, carried beyond a certain extent, others may interpret as a physical threat - for what it is. In other words, I feel confident enough to discount cultural differences as a factor here. McTim has extensive hands on ICT experience in Africa, and is, I think, as widely exposed to a cross cultural milieu as I am, if not more. I won't presume to speak for him about how or why he formed a conclusion on parminder's behavior at a forum that neither he nor I attended, but my informed guess is that his thought processes in doing so were similar to mine above. Even without that, Parminder's explicit endorsement of multilateral proposals including the CIRP, render him unfit to properly represent the needs and interests of civil society. This is enitrely separate from personality clashes, and just as separate from his tendency to engage in political maneuvring rather than collegial engagement with other stakeholders. Thanks --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 8:41, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in that event, > so why are they reporting about it? > > When I read: >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an IGF event? > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jan 8 22:57:13 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:27:13 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> Message-ID: <9ED56AF0-95D3-492C-B7C4-FC3A45FE6AAB@hserus.net> Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is certainly a common mistake, M. Nothias - I would urge you to avoid it. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 8:16, John Curran wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: >> >> >> This is important because if the "Lynn and 11 CEOs" meetings were not for you MSist governance, what you call MS globalization is actually a more stringent coalition that formalize in three steps: >> >> 1. august 29, 2012. OpenStand statement about the Normative coalition paradigm. >> 2. october 7, 2013 Montevideo statement about the Cooperation coalition.pardigm. >> ... > > You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, ARIN is not > a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or precondition) of the > Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 23:00:37 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:00:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: Hello Daniel, I seem to disagree with your view in this Globalized Environment we currently find our selves. Discipline is key and self control is paramount. Our opinions should always put us in harmony with the Environment. Messages can be put across without raising tensions and panics. What is the use of ethical controls? My 50cent. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jan 9, 2014 4:12 AM, "Daniel Pimienta" wrote: > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in > that event, > so why are they reporting about it? > > When I read: > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but >> i felt physically threatened). >> > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an > objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from > the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), > coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this > state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people > around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised > the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). > It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to > try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian > culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my > guess is that it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange > situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an > IGF event? > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 23:00:57 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 23:00:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in > that event, > so why are they reporting about it? Speaking for myself, I am not "reporting" merely reminding folk that it is an unresolved issue for the IGC. > > When I read: > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but >> i felt physically threatened). > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an > objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from > the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. Does your hypothesis explain why folks from other parts of the world were so uncomfortable they also left? > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), > coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this > state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people around > me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised the hand > to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). It really > impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to try to adapt > and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian culture but I > wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my guess is that > it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The hidden > dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange > situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an > IGF event? > no, you just have to have a sense of decency. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 9 00:13:25 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:13:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> On 09/01/14 11:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Even without that, Parminder's explicit endorsement of multilateral proposals including the CIRP, render him unfit to properly represent the needs and interests of civil society. This is enitrely separate from personality clashes, and just as separate from his tendency to engage in political maneuvring rather than collegial engagement with other stakeholders. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Suresh... you won't deny that you too have been cautioned over your behaviour towards other IGC members (admittedly on the list, not in person). And to describe the CIRP as multilateral is an oversimplification, though its original formulation did have significant problems (which should be no surprise, it was a first draft). -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 00:15:10 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:15:10 +0700 Subject: [governance] Bad Behaviour Message-ID: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> All of this cluck, cluck, clucking about "bad behavior" by some folks whose truly atrocious behavior effectively shut down the IGC list and may have destroyed it forever is a source of some shall we say, "irony... I was at the famous Bali meeting and I thought that Parminder's behaviour was at a couple of points inappropriate--provoked certainly, but inappropriate; perhaps reflecting certain cultural misunderstandings or whatever, but yes, inappropriate and I told him so... Whether it warrants this kind of public vilification and what appears to be a desire for permanent exile (and the, dare I say, quite evidently political motivations that are prompting this .... I leave to various people's judgement.. In normal circumstances I would suggest that one party offers an apology, the other party accepts, they kiss and make up (whoops perhaps not so appropriate in this circumstance... and we all go on our way... But let's talk about some really "bad behavior" and moreover behavior that has serious consequences much beyond a couple of momentary lapses... We have a self-selected group, purportedly representing "Civil Society" (the Best bits Coordinating Committee); being self-appointed to an, in turn, self-selected group which purports to also represent Civil Society but in some vaguer larger sense (the Civil Society Coordinating Committee-CS:CC); and then further self-selecting themselves or their designates to represent "civil society" on the Coordinating Group of further vague and extremely shadowy and so far with no provenance or transparency -- the Inet group. And then to pile on top of this we have authorities in Brazil (again extremely vague as to who exactly is involved) designating this shadowy Inet group to be the sole interface for all of the non-governmental sectors to be involved in what has been purported to be a Summit to discuss global Internet Policies and Principles... And further we have this CS: CC going through an internal process among its self-appointed poobahs of horse-trading and other processes without apparent legitimacy or accountability and transparency (only by happy accident) to identify nominees for some elements of this self-same "Summit/err... meeting... (I may have missed an illegitimacy or unaccountability there somewhere but you get my drift... Now, the community of which I am a part has been looking to have a role in these discussions but what I see is a wall of illegitimacies and exclusionary behaviours which at their base and up and down the line are quite evidently politically motivated i.e. meant to close off debate; to limit issues and options; to exclude divergent voices; to ensure the ultimate adoption of a now-(post-Snowden) discredited and illegitimate, status quo consensus concerning the principle, policies and practices of global Internet Governance... To say that I'm disappointed is hardly sufficient... To say that all this is starting to look (err... smell) like the World Economic Forum and it's pay for play approach to Global Governance is I think hardly hyperbole. "So what does a po' boy do, but play in a... whoops wrong song, but right melody... Maybe we'll just have to call our own meeting -- call it the World Internet Forum -- and see who might show up to have a real discussion on the real issues concerning the Internet in current society and towards an Internet for the Common Good... Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Daniel Pimienta Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Pimienta < pimienta at funredes.org> wrote: > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were > present in that event, so why are they reporting about it? Speaking for myself, I am not "reporting" merely reminding folk that it is an unresolved issue for the IGC. > > When I read: > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, >> but i felt physically threatened). > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is > an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen > subjective from the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. Does your hypothesis explain why folks from other parts of the world were so uncomfortable they also left? > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep > South), coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress > this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some > people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have > never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any > physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, > since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. > I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not > facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create > strange situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate > in an IGF event? > no, you just have to have a sense of decency. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 00:19:03 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:49:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I don't believe I have ever physically threatened anybody on this list, but let your first comment stand. As for the CIRP, its overwhelming lack of support among any other than a few dictatorial nations should speak for itself. Its wording as it stands still appears to favor the word "multilateral", with other stakeholders brought into the picture in an advisory capacity, or as part of a national delegation, if at all. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 10:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 09/01/14 11:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Even without that, Parminder's explicit endorsement of multilateral proposals including the CIRP, render him unfit to properly represent the needs and interests of civil society. This is enitrely separate from personality clashes, and just as separate from his tendency to engage in political maneuvring rather than collegial engagement with other stakeholders. > > Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Suresh... you won't deny that you too have been cautioned over your behaviour towards other IGC members (admittedly on the list, not in person). And to describe the CIRP as multilateral is an oversimplification, though its original formulation did have significant problems (which should be no surprise, it was a first draft). > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 00:22:01 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:52:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bad Behaviour In-Reply-To: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> References: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C3B3965-7459-4543-98F4-D9987FCCC2B5@hserus.net> This vintage of grape seems to be unusually sour, I must say. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 10:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > We have a self-selected group, purportedly representing "Civil Society" (the Best bits Coordinating Committee); being self-appointed to an, in turn, self-selected group which purports to also represent Civil Society but in some vaguer larger sense (the Civil Society Coordinating Committee-CS:CC); and then further self-selecting themselves or their designates to represent "civil society" on the Coordinating Group of further vague and extremely shadowy and so far with no provenance or transparency -- the Inet group. > > And then to pile on top of this we have authorities in Brazil (again extremely vague as to who exactly is involved) designating this shadowy Inet group to be the sole interface for all of the non-governmental sectors to be involved in what has been purported to be a Summit to discuss global Internet Policies and Principles... > > And further we have this CS: CC going through an internal process among its self-appointed poobahs of horse-trading and other processes without apparent legitimacy or accountability and transparency (only by happy accident) to identify nominees for some elements of this self-same "Summit/err... meeting... > > (I may have missed an illegitimacy or unaccountability there somewhere but you get my drift... > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 00:58:18 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:58:18 +1300 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: <5139364E-885A-42DC-A8EE-44F19D053AD7@gmail.com> Hi All, Apologies for intervening late, been busy cooking amongst other things. This has gotten out of hand. There will be no more discussions on the incident as a complaint was filed and currently pending a decision hence no comment can be rendered at this point. Let's focus on more pressing issues. Suresh, we have received your objection to The nomination as you had indicated by your -1 but that does not take away from those that have endorsed Parminder's nomination. Let's keep the discussions dignified please. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Hello Daniel, > > I seem to disagree with your view in this Globalized Environment we currently find our selves. > > Discipline is key and self control is paramount. > > Our opinions should always put us in harmony with the Environment. > > Messages can be put across without raising tensions and panics. What is the use of ethical controls? > > My 50cent. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > >> On Jan 9, 2014 4:12 AM, "Daniel Pimienta" wrote: >> This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? >> From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in that event, >> so why are they reporting about it? >> >> When I read: >>> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). >> I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from the outside. >> >> However. >> >> Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this personal situation. >> Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. >> >> I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), coming from my mediterranean culture. >> Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. >> >> I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange situatrons... and to cool down. >> >> Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an IGF event? >> >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Thu Jan 9 01:29:38 2014 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:29:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <11661CC8-F42F-4164-B807-9DA64FBCC920@orange.fr> Message-ID: Indeed well analyzed, and not just because I am French :-). How can we channel such lucidity in getting a real covenant about Internet? Divina Le 08/01/14 19:28, « massit follea » a écrit : > +1 > FMF > > Le 8 janv. 14 à 16:15, Louis Pouzin (well) a écrit : > >> Superb, and true. >> Louis >> - - - >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Indeed, indeed, Parminder! >>>> >>>> >>>> The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal and >>>> the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. 1net is an >>>> ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is amusing to note >>>> that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings >>>> has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! >>>> The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures >>>> the I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs >>>> part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of >>>> the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived WCIT >>>> but not Snowden. >>>> >>>> Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting during >>>> last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first reluctant to the >>>> 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and its chapters if you only >>>> think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons were discussed. >>>> >>>> >>>> It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience that 1net >>>> is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of legitimacy to ICANN >>>> and its plan to bake an international dressing and menu, in order to keep >>>> as much as possible the asymmetry acceptable. It is also a bright move to >>>> try to bring back as many civil society voices under a I-stars >>>> overview/control. But some elements of the international civil society are >>>> not governable from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are >>>> located). 1net has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN >>>> 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even >>>> though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the 1net, the >>>> High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to take the IGF down >>>> to a not-able venue - We the French have made a word with the not-able, les >>>> notables, the ones having the impression that they are the important guys >>>> around. No one better than a notable can keep a status quo safe. Notables >>>> are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by nature. A >>>> little bit like the I-stars and their aficionados. >>>> >>>> >>>> ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US entity, even >>>> though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea is to shift civil >>>> society and other Internet actors under an ICANN umbrella, an umbrella >>>> being revamped as some sort of International organization (IO). Even though >>>> it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN would be an embarrassment to any >>>> initiative coming from or endorsed by a multilateral, or international law >>>> related, oriented body. >>>> >>>> >>>> The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF capacity. >>>> They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more funds, and that >>>> the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. This UN-WSIS venue is >>>> today functioning with a miserable budget, even in comparison to the ICANN >>>> communication budget, or the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and its >>>> selling of domains with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial >>>> condition, the IGF has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show >>>> some good face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and >>>> others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it fair to >>>> associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And make sure that >>>> everyone confuses the UN with them. >>>> >>>> >>>> Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some more $ as >>>> they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote location whether in >>>> California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss and blunder. We all remember >>>> that a few notables agreed to be paid for their personal views over IG when >>>> attending the London High level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks >>>> ago. What was the budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be >>>> happy to get this money to investigate more about the financial practice >>>> over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or >>>> launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. >>>> >>>> >>>> So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "Tout va bien >>>> madame la marquise"? >>>> >>>> It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions from >>>> many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. >>>> >>>> >>>> Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. >>>> >>>> Enough will soon be enough >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> __________________________ >>>> >>>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>>> >>>> @jc_nothias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > Françoise Massit-Folléa > f.massit at orange.fr > Mob. 06 74 51 67 65 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 01:40:13 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:10:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <5139364E-885A-42DC-A8EE-44F19D053AD7@gmail.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <5139364E-885A-42DC-A8EE-44F19D053AD7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5264066B-A064-4E22-B306-D77583BEA2D8@hserus.net> Sala, thank you. I have made my opinions clear here, and as I indicated earlier in this thread, those that nominated Parminder are entirely entitled to their opinion. regards --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 11:28, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Hi All, > > Apologies for intervening late, been busy cooking amongst other things. This has gotten out of hand. There will be no more discussions on the incident as a complaint was filed and currently pending a decision hence no comment can be rendered at this point. > > Let's focus on more pressing issues. Suresh, we have received your objection to The nomination as you had indicated by your -1 but that does not take away from those that have endorsed Parminder's nomination. > > Let's keep the discussions dignified please. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >> Hello Daniel, >> >> I seem to disagree with your view in this Globalized Environment we currently find our selves. >> >> Discipline is key and self control is paramount. >> >> Our opinions should always put us in harmony with the Environment. >> >> Messages can be put across without raising tensions and panics. What is the use of ethical controls? >> >> My 50cent. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> >> +234 8027510179 >> >>> On Jan 9, 2014 4:12 AM, "Daniel Pimienta" wrote: >>> This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? >>> From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in that event, >>> so why are they reporting about it? >>> >>> When I read: >>>> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). >>> I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from the outside. >>> >>> However. >>> >>> Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this personal situation. >>> Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. >>> >>> I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), coming from my mediterranean culture. >>> Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. >>> >>> I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange situatrons... and to cool down. >>> >>> Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an IGF event? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 02:05:32 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:05:32 +0700 Subject: [governance] Some real issues for policy debate Message-ID: <060101cf0d09$314efa80$93ecef80$@gmail.com> Some real issues for policy debate. How did we end up with a centralized Internet for the NSA to mine? And How the NSA Almost Killed the Internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 02:06:00 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:06:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Bad Behaviour In-Reply-To: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> References: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, regardless the content of your response, I am still wondering why you put the 1net list on cc while the initial thread is in IGC list . another remark, as an non-native speaker, I cannot really grasp every time the expressions or references you are using and this coming someone stating defending the under-represented , I feel confused . Best Regards, Rafik 2014/1/9 michael gurstein > All of this cluck, cluck, clucking about "bad behavior" by some folks > whose truly atrocious behavior effectively shut down the IGC list and may > have destroyed it forever is a source of some shall we say, "irony... > > > > I was at the famous Bali meeting and I thought that Parminder's behaviour > was at a couple of points inappropriate--provoked certainly, but > inappropriate; perhaps reflecting certain cultural misunderstandings or > whatever, but yes, inappropriate and I told him so... > > > > Whether it warrants this kind of public vilification and what appears to > be a desire for permanent exile (and the, dare I say, quite evidently > political motivations that are prompting this .... I leave to various > people's judgement.. > > > > In normal circumstances I would suggest that one party offers an apology, > the other party accepts, they kiss and make up (whoops perhaps not so > appropriate in this circumstance... and we all go on our way... > > > > But let's talk about some really "bad behavior" and moreover behavior that > has serious consequences much beyond a couple of momentary lapses... > > > > We have a *self-selected* group, *purportedly* representing "Civil > Society" (the Best bits Coordinating Committee); being *self-appointed*to an, in turn, > *self-selected* group which *purports* to also represent Civil Society > but in some vaguer larger sense (the Civil Society Coordinating > Committee-CS:CC); and then further *self-selecting* themselves or their > designates to represent "civil society" on the Coordinating Group of > further *vague and extremely shadowy and so far with no provenance or > transparency *-- the Inet group. > > > > And then to pile on top of this we have authorities in Brazil (again > extremely vague as to who exactly is involved) *designating this shadowy > Inet group to be the sole interface* for all of the non-governmental > sectors to be involved in what has been purported to be a Summit to discuss > global Internet Policies and Principles... > > > > And further we have this CS: CC going through an internal process among > its self-appointed poobahs of horse-trading and other processes *without > apparent legitimacy or accountability and transparency (only by happy > accident)* to identify nominees for some elements of this self-same > "Summit/err... meeting... > > > > (I may have missed an illegitimacy or unaccountability there somewhere but > you get my drift... > > > > Now, the community of which I am a part has been looking to have a role in > these discussions but what I see is a wall of illegitimacies and > exclusionary behaviours which at their base and up and down the line are > quite evidently politically motivated i.e. meant to close off debate; to > limit issues and options; to exclude divergent voices; to ensure the > ultimate adoption of a now-(post-Snowden) discredited and illegitimate, > status quo consensus concerning the principle, policies and practices of > global Internet Governance... > > > > To say that I'm disappointed is hardly sufficient... To say that all this > is starting to look (err... smell) like the World Economic Forum and it's > pay for play approach to Global Governance is I think hardly hyperbole. > > > > "So what does a po' boy do, but play in a... whoops wrong song, but right > melody... > > > > Maybe we'll just have to call our own meeting -- call it the World > Internet Forum -- and see who might show up to have a real discussion on > the real issues concerning the Internet in current society and towards an Internet > for the Common Good... > > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Daniel Pimienta > Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Pimienta > wrote: > > > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > > > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were > > > present in that event, so why are they reporting about it? > > > > Speaking for myself, I am not "reporting" merely reminding folk that it is > an unresolved issue for the IGC. > > > > > > > > When I read: > > > > > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, > > >> but i felt physically threatened). > > > > > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is > > > an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen > > > subjective from the outside. > > > > > > However. > > > > > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > > > personal situation. > > > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of > ...difference. > > > > Does your hypothesis explain why folks from other parts of the world were > so uncomfortable they also left? > > > > > > > > > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep > > > South), coming from my mediterranean culture. > > > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress > > > this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some > > > people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have > > > never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any > > > physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, > > > since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. > > > I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not > > > facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly > probable. > > > > > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > > > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create > > > strange situatrons... and to cool down. > > > > > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > > > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate > > > in an IGF event? > > > > > > > > > no, you just have to have a sense of decency. > > > > > > -- > > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 02:27:06 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:27:06 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Bad Behaviour In-Reply-To: References: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <061f01cf0d0c$35500900$9ff01b00$@gmail.com> Rafik, I put the Inet list on because my major comment had to do with Inet and the tributary behaviours from this list and others towards it… And sorry, my reference to a very old song from the Rolling Stones probably is obscure rather more because of it’s (and my) age than it is to differences in cultural or linguistic J background… M From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:06 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Bad Behaviour Hi Michael, regardless the content of your response, I am still wondering why you put the 1net list on cc while the initial thread is in IGC list . another remark, as an non-native speaker, I cannot really grasp every time the expressions or references you are using and this coming someone stating defending the under-represented , I feel confused . Best Regards, Rafik 2014/1/9 michael gurstein All of this cluck, cluck, clucking about "bad behavior" by some folks whose truly atrocious behavior effectively shut down the IGC list and may have destroyed it forever is a source of some shall we say, "irony... I was at the famous Bali meeting and I thought that Parminder's behaviour was at a couple of points inappropriate--provoked certainly, but inappropriate; perhaps reflecting certain cultural misunderstandings or whatever, but yes, inappropriate and I told him so... Whether it warrants this kind of public vilification and what appears to be a desire for permanent exile (and the, dare I say, quite evidently political motivations that are prompting this .... I leave to various people's judgement.. In normal circumstances I would suggest that one party offers an apology, the other party accepts, they kiss and make up (whoops perhaps not so appropriate in this circumstance... and we all go on our way... But let's talk about some really "bad behavior" and moreover behavior that has serious consequences much beyond a couple of momentary lapses... We have a self-selected group, purportedly representing "Civil Society" (the Best bits Coordinating Committee); being self-appointed to an, in turn, self-selected group which purports to also represent Civil Society but in some vaguer larger sense (the Civil Society Coordinating Committee-CS:CC); and then further self-selecting themselves or their designates to represent "civil society" on the Coordinating Group of further vague and extremely shadowy and so far with no provenance or transparency -- the Inet group. And then to pile on top of this we have authorities in Brazil (again extremely vague as to who exactly is involved) designating this shadowy Inet group to be the sole interface for all of the non-governmental sectors to be involved in what has been purported to be a Summit to discuss global Internet Policies and Principles... And further we have this CS: CC going through an internal process among its self-appointed poobahs of horse-trading and other processes without apparent legitimacy or accountability and transparency (only by happy accident) to identify nominees for some elements of this self-same "Summit/err... meeting... (I may have missed an illegitimacy or unaccountability there somewhere but you get my drift... Now, the community of which I am a part has been looking to have a role in these discussions but what I see is a wall of illegitimacies and exclusionary behaviours which at their base and up and down the line are quite evidently politically motivated i.e. meant to close off debate; to limit issues and options; to exclude divergent voices; to ensure the ultimate adoption of a now-(post-Snowden) discredited and illegitimate, status quo consensus concerning the principle, policies and practices of global Internet Governance... To say that I'm disappointed is hardly sufficient... To say that all this is starting to look (err... smell) like the World Economic Forum and it's pay for play approach to Global Governance is I think hardly hyperbole. "So what does a po' boy do, but play in a... whoops wrong song, but right melody... Maybe we'll just have to call our own meeting -- call it the World Internet Forum -- and see who might show up to have a real discussion on the real issues concerning the Internet in current society and towards an Internet for the Common Good... Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Daniel Pimienta Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Pimienta < pimienta at funredes.org> wrote: > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were > present in that event, so why are they reporting about it? Speaking for myself, I am not "reporting" merely reminding folk that it is an unresolved issue for the IGC. > > When I read: > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, >> but i felt physically threatened). > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is > an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen > subjective from the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. Does your hypothesis explain why folks from other parts of the world were so uncomfortable they also left? > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep > South), coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress > this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some > people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have > never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any > physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, > since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. > I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not > facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create > strange situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate > in an IGF event? > no, you just have to have a sense of decency. -- 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: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 02:38:14 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:08:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Bad Behaviour In-Reply-To: <061f01cf0d0c$35500900$9ff01b00$@gmail.com> References: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> <061f01cf0d0c$35500900$9ff01b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <661E0A44-49BB-427C-8131-EB96E31A1476@hserus.net> Rolling Stones, 'Street Fighting Man' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUO8ScYVeDo "But what can a po' boy do, Except to sing for a rock n roll band Cause in sleepy London Town There's just no place for a street fighting man Replace "sleepy London Town" with igcaucus and .. well, a career in rock and roll sounds imperative for lots of people, now that you put it that way. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 12:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Rafik, > > I put the Inet list on because my major comment had to do with Inet and the tributary behaviours from this list and others towards it… > > And sorry, my reference to a very old song from the Rolling Stones probably is obscure rather more because of it’s (and my) age than it is to differences in cultural or linguistic J background… > > M > > From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:06 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Bad Behaviour > > Hi Michael, > > regardless the content of your response, I am still wondering why you put the 1net list on cc while the initial thread is in IGC list . > > another remark, as an non-native speaker, I cannot really grasp every time the expressions or references you are using and this coming someone stating defending the under-represented , I feel confused . > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014/1/9 michael gurstein > All of this cluck, cluck, clucking about "bad behavior" by some folks whose truly atrocious behavior effectively shut down the IGC list and may have destroyed it forever is a source of some shall we say, "irony... > > > > I was at the famous Bali meeting and I thought that Parminder's behaviour was at a couple of points inappropriate--provoked certainly, but inappropriate; perhaps reflecting certain cultural misunderstandings or whatever, but yes, inappropriate and I told him so... > > > > Whether it warrants this kind of public vilification and what appears to be a desire for permanent exile (and the, dare I say, quite evidently political motivations that are prompting this .... I leave to various people's judgement.. > > > > In normal circumstances I would suggest that one party offers an apology, the other party accepts, they kiss and make up (whoops perhaps not so appropriate in this circumstance... and we all go on our way... > > > > But let's talk about some really "bad behavior" and moreover behavior that has serious consequences much beyond a couple of momentary lapses... > > > > We have a self-selected group, purportedly representing "Civil Society" (the Best bits Coordinating Committee); being self-appointed to an, in turn, self-selected group which purports to also represent Civil Society but in some vaguer larger sense (the Civil Society Coordinating Committee-CS:CC); and then further self-selecting themselves or their designates to represent "civil society" on the Coordinating Group of further vague and extremely shadowy and so far with no provenance or transparency -- the Inet group. > > > > And then to pile on top of this we have authorities in Brazil (again extremely vague as to who exactly is involved) designating this shadowy Inet group to be the sole interface for all of the non-governmental sectors to be involved in what has been purported to be a Summit to discuss global Internet Policies and Principles... > > > > And further we have this CS: CC going through an internal process among its self-appointed poobahs of horse-trading and other processes without apparent legitimacy or accountability and transparency (only by happy accident) to identify nominees for some elements of this self-same "Summit/err... meeting... > > > > (I may have missed an illegitimacy or unaccountability there somewhere but you get my drift... > > > > Now, the community of which I am a part has been looking to have a role in these discussions but what I see is a wall of illegitimacies and exclusionary behaviours which at their base and up and down the line are quite evidently politically motivated i.e. meant to close off debate; to limit issues and options; to exclude divergent voices; to ensure the ultimate adoption of a now-(post-Snowden) discredited and illegitimate, status quo consensus concerning the principle, policies and practices of global Internet Governance... > > > > To say that I'm disappointed is hardly sufficient... To say that all this is starting to look (err... smell) like the World Economic Forum and it's pay for play approach to Global Governance is I think hardly hyperbole. > > > > "So what does a po' boy do, but play in a... whoops wrong song, but right melody... > > > > Maybe we'll just have to call our own meeting -- call it the World Internet Forum -- and see who might show up to have a real discussion on the real issues concerning the Internet in current society and towards an Internet for the Common Good... > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Daniel Pimienta > Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > > > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were > > > present in that event, so why are they reporting about it? > > > > Speaking for myself, I am not "reporting" merely reminding folk that it is an unresolved issue for the IGC. > > > > > > > > When I read: > > > > > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, > > >> but i felt physically threatened). > > > > > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is > > > an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen > > > subjective from the outside. > > > > > > However. > > > > > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > > > personal situation. > > > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. > > > > Does your hypothesis explain why folks from other parts of the world were so uncomfortable they also left? > > > > > > > > > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep > > > South), coming from my mediterranean culture. > > > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress > > > this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some > > > people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have > > > never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any > > > physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, > > > since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. > > > I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not > > > facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. > > > > > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > > > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create > > > strange situatrons... and to cool down. > > > > > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > > > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate > > > in an IGF event? > > > > > > > > > no, you just have to have a sense of decency. > > > > > > -- > > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Thu Jan 9 03:15:41 2014 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:15:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <5264066B-A064-4E22-B306-D77583BEA2D8@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <5139364E-885A-42DC-A8EE-44F19D053AD7@gmail.com> <5264066B-A064-4E22-B306-D77583BEA2D8@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1389255341.33474.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> +1 for Parminder Le Jeudi 9 janvier 2014 7h41, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Sala, thank you. I have made my opinions clear here, and as I indicated earlier in this thread, those that nominated Parminder are entirely entitled to their opinion. regards --srs (iPad) On 09-Jan-2014, at 11:28, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Hi All, Apologies for intervening late, been busy cooking amongst other things. This has gotten out of hand. There will be no more discussions on the incident as a complaint was filed and currently pending a decision hence no comment can be rendered at this point. Let's focus on more pressing issues. Suresh, we have received your objection to The nomination as you had indicated by your -1 but that does not take away from those that have endorsed Parminder's nomination. Let's keep the discussions dignified please. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: Hello Daniel, >I seem to disagree with your view in this Globalized Environment we currently find our selves. >Discipline is key and self control is paramount. >Our opinions should always put us in harmony with the Environment. >Messages can be put across without raising tensions and panics. What is the use of ethical controls? >My 50cent. >Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >+234 8027510179 >On Jan 9, 2014 4:12 AM, "Daniel Pimienta" wrote: > >This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? >>From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in that event, >>so why are they reporting about it? >> >>When I read: >> >>He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). >>> I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from the outside. >> >>However. >> >>Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this personal situation. >>Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. >> >>I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), coming from my mediterranean culture. >>Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. >> >>I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange situatrons... and to cool down. >> >>Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an IGF event? >> >> >> >> >>-- >>This message has been scanned for viruses and >>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>believed to be clean. >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 9 03:18:27 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:18:27 +0600 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <1389255341.33474.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <5139364E-885A-42DC-A8EE-44F19D053AD7@gmail.com> <5264066B-A064-4E22-B306-D77583BEA2D8@hserus.net> <1389255341.33474.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 for Parminder *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 cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 9 03:20:20 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:20:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <1389255341.33474.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <5139364E-885A-42DC-A8EE-44F19D053AD7@gmail.com> <5264066B-A064-4E22-B306-D77583BEA2D8@hserus.net> <1389255341.33474.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 for Parminder 2014/1/9 CAFEC > +1 for Parminder > > > Le Jeudi 9 janvier 2014 7h41, Suresh Ramasubramanian > a écrit : > Sala, thank you. I have made my opinions clear here, and as I indicated > earlier in this thread, those that nominated Parminder are entirely > entitled to their opinion. > > regards > --srs (iPad) > > On 09-Jan-2014, at 11:28, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Apologies for intervening late, been busy cooking amongst other things. > This has gotten out of hand. There will be no more discussions on the > incident as a complaint was filed and currently pending a decision hence no > comment can be rendered at this point. > > Let's focus on more pressing issues. Suresh, we have received your > objection to The nomination as you had indicated by your -1 but that does > not take away from those that have endorsed Parminder's nomination. > > Let's keep the discussions dignified please. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Hello Daniel, > I seem to disagree with your view in this Globalized Environment we > currently find our selves. > Discipline is key and self control is paramount. > Our opinions should always put us in harmony with the Environment. > Messages can be put across without raising tensions and panics. What is > the use of ethical controls? > My 50cent. > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > +234 8027510179 > On Jan 9, 2014 4:12 AM, "Daniel Pimienta" wrote: > > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were present in > that event, > so why are they reporting about it? > > When I read: > > He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, but > i felt physically threatened). > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is an > objective part of their own realm although it could be seen subjective from > the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep South), > coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress this > state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some people > around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have never rised > the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any physical agression). > It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, since i was living there, to > try to adapt and change somehow behavior. I am not familiar with Indian > culture but I wonder if we are not facing the same type of situation and my > guess is that it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create strange > situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate in an > IGF event? > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 9 03:58:54 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:58:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 9 Jan 2014, at 1:13 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/01/14 11:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Even without that, Parminder's explicit endorsement of multilateral proposals including the CIRP, render him unfit to properly represent the needs and interests of civil society. This is enitrely separate from personality clashes, and just as separate from his tendency to engage in political maneuvring rather than collegial engagement with other stakeholders. > > Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Suresh... you won't deny that you too have been cautioned over your behaviour towards other IGC members (admittedly on the list, not in person). If you think both Suresh and Parminder have behaved inappropriately, then you should be against either of them being selected, surely? If you believe both are in the wrong, so we should ignore it, that sounds like a recipe for a continuing problematic culture that is explicitly tolerant of bad behaviour. I mean, given that even Parminder's supporters, such as Michael, are still saying that he behaves inappropriately (just claim that maybe other people are... well, not as bad, but not perfect either), there surely is a serious problem, and deflecting criticism with 'he isn't the only one' is no longer (if it ever was) appropriate. I would appreciate an explanation from those, like yourself and Michael, who (explicitly in Michaels case, implicitly in your case) admit that Parminder's behaviour is inappropriate, but want to support him anyway. Regards David > And to describe the CIRP as multilateral is an oversimplification, though its original formulation did have significant problems (which should be no surprise, it was a first draft). > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 9 04:27:48 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:27:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52CE6B94.2080201@ciroap.org> On 09/01/14 16:58, David Cake wrote: > I would appreciate an explanation from those, like yourself and > Michael, who (explicitly in Michaels case, implicitly in your case) > admit that Parminder's behaviour is inappropriate, but want to support > him anyway. Playing well with others is only one of the criteria being used to select nominees for the Brazil committees (and even then, it's "ability to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups"). Note that this does not imply that I supported Parminder for the shortlist, or that I didn't do so. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 9 05:07:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:37:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> Message-ID: <52CE74DD.7060206@itforchange.net> This canard has been going on for too long now... It has been mentioned on this list at least 4-5 times since Bali, and each time in a highly unrestrained language, with quick backups by 3-4 people, most of who were even not at the meeting... My response has been not to react. It is not easy to do so, to let public allegations regarding one's behaviour go un-responded. But one of course knows what is the game of the instigators - I will respond, and then there can a free for all for them to say more, and all the while it is 'my behaviour' being judged and spoken of.. And we all know that this is just one link in a long chain of witch hunting by these few people who, unfortunately, want to play their politics by other means. But I know that David Conrad's email comes with real concern about knowing facts, because in all the discussions I have had with him he has this almost extra ordinary penchant for facts... Therefore I as well may state the facts. The following are the facts of the 'incident' Suresh/ Tim/ Avri speak of... At the meeting, in Bali, there was a comment made by someone which I thought was highly personal and inappropriate, and I got up saying that one cannot be told such a thing, and begin to go out of the room. Now that part is not the issue under consideration. Neither am I raising it for consideration. Stuff happens. What is under consideration is my interaction with Avri. As I walked past Avri who was sitting on the floor, she said, of course, well-meaning-ly, in order to deter me from walking out - "this is something 'the person' could have said to anyone"... To which I turned back towards Avri and said "would you , Avri, have stayed in the room if this had been said to you". And of course when one says "would you" one's finger is out and pointed towards the person -- I know no way from where I come to say that sentence without holding a finger which goes with the expression "would you avri"... And my utterance was the highest call to ones reason and sense of justice - Would you in the same circumstances do differently! I would consider such to be the highest respect one can give to another while dealing with a difference of opinion. (Especially in a situation when I was myself upset and walking out.) My utterance being posited as the justification of why I had to walk out. How is this a threat! Avri responded by saying "Dont you wag your frecking finger at me". (i do not know the meaning of this word - frecking -but I think it may be a kind of a bad word. Doesnt matter. I admit, this may not precisely be the word she said but a similar sounding word). And I walked away. (Immediately afterwards I came back to the room and rejoined the meeting.) This is what happened vis a vis the incident that has so insistently been propped up . At this stage I think I need justice vis a vis the kinds of campaigns that are nowadays regularly run on this list. There are more forthright ways to do ones politics than that, in this decidedly political space. I suggest that 3-4 senior most civil society persons who were present when this incident took place be formed into a committee and give a decision on this matter - both about what actually happened in terms of the contented interaction between Avri and me, and what has been made of it it since on public lists and the implications of that for my political work, and perhaps also my personal standing (about which I care relatively less). I can think of Ian, Carlos, Deirdre and Michael as the senior most people who were there at that meeting, and I am happy to accept the judgement by a committee of them... parminder On Thursday 09 January 2014 07:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 08-Jan-14 20:08, David Conrad wrote: >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>>> -1 >>> >>> In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh! >> >> For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a >> bit cryptic. Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"? >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> > > Sure. The short version. > > Parminder was verbally aggressive with several people during the meeting. > Some walked out. > I objected. > > He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me > (no contact, but i felt physically threatened). > More people walked out, including me. > > The meeting continued, I heard. > > After the meeting, I appealed to the co-coordinators of the IGC to do > something about this. > > The appeal was never formally responded to, though I did get some > updates on ongoing discussions. > > In the meantime, while I still lurk on this list, for the most part I > decided to avoid participation until such time as my appeal was ruled on. > > avri > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Thu Jan 9 05:17:58 2014 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:17:58 +0100 Subject: Cross posting WAS Re: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52ce71f0.8479cc0a.0967.ffffae39SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> <52ce71f0.8479cc0a.0967.ffffae39SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear all, May I request that the cross posting be discontinued? I am getting three copies of an increasing proportion of /1net, BestBits and IGC list traffic and I know I am far from alone. Michel Gauthier wrote: >At 03:46 09/01/2014, John Curran wrote: >>You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, >>ARIN is not >>a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or >>precondition) of the >>Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > >John ..... >please let us know who is not endorsing the ISOC OpenStand among the >"Lynn and the 11 CEOs"? >https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/226-OpenStand_Overview1.pdf > >Please do not play with the words. There are five signatorees, then >the endorsers and the supporters. The ARIN's position in itself is of >no particular importance. What is discussed here is the ISOC/ICANN >strategy IRT the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77 position >over the mutual control of the consolidation of the Internet >technology. > >May I remind you that: > >- "ISOC is a non-profit organization founded in 1992 to provide >*leadership* in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It >is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of >the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world." >- WCIT has shown that the disagreement is between the notions of >"leadership" (ISOC lead) and "MS-ship" (people centered). Sao Paulo >should help clarfying it as a societal and global evolution of which >the framework is to be defined. > >However, the ISOC leadership and BRICS have focussed on the internet >only forgetting the "layer six" issues. As long as they were only >perceived as JEDI's ("Jefsey Morfin Disciple's" according to Martin >Dürst) "idée fixe", its was an epiphenomena. Now DARPA/CGC is a >response to IAB's RFC 3869 that confirms the complexity of the >"missing layer" file. Because the software development capacity of >Russia, China, India, Brazil at least equals the US and Europe one. > >MG > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >discuss mailing list >discuss at 1net.org >http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 05:51:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:51:09 +0700 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> I think I should be clearer in what I said/meant. Suresh is a troll. Whether or not he is being paid to disrupt this e-list and harass and attempt to delegitimize Civil Society's most useful contributor, Parminder, I have no idea and will probably never know. That he and his harassment is being enabled by others on this list for purely political reasons-McTim, Avri, others, is to my mind also quite transparent. That this harassment is provoking and meant to be provoking is also quite evident. having someone react to such behavior is not surprising-I would almost certainly react in similar ways in similar circumstances as I guess would most of you. The stuff with Parminder is a passing episode and should be settled as such by whatever means are available and immediately. The campaign by Suresh as aided and abetted by the others is continuing and has significantly undermined the capacity of the IGC to move forward in these very important times for the Internet. Perhaps this was the intention all along. I don't know. I think dealing with that requires resources and capacities which sadly, are much beyond the IGC in its current form. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 3:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder On 9 Jan 2014, at 1:13 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 09/01/14 11:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Even without that, Parminder's explicit endorsement of multilateral proposals including the CIRP, render him unfit to properly represent the needs and interests of civil society. This is enitrely separate from personality clashes, and just as separate from his tendency to engage in political maneuvring rather than collegial engagement with other stakeholders. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Suresh... you won't deny that you too have been cautioned over your behaviour towards other IGC members (admittedly on the list, not in person). If you think both Suresh and Parminder have behaved inappropriately, then you should be against either of them being selected, surely? If you believe both are in the wrong, so we should ignore it, that sounds like a recipe for a continuing problematic culture that is explicitly tolerant of bad behaviour. I mean, given that even Parminder's supporters, such as Michael, are still saying that he behaves inappropriately (just claim that maybe other people are... well, not as bad, but not perfect either), there surely is a serious problem, and deflecting criticism with 'he isn't the only one' is no longer (if it ever was) appropriate. I would appreciate an explanation from those, like yourself and Michael, who (explicitly in Michaels case, implicitly in your case) admit that Parminder's behaviour is inappropriate, but want to support him anyway. Regards David And to describe the CIRP as multilateral is an oversimplification, though its original formulation did have significant problems (which should be no surprise, it was a first draft). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 06:15:33 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:45:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <020E26F6-565D-4A64-A067-717F6062CCAE@hserus.net> What you might know is that I've time and again said this on the list - the last time too was in response to a similar statement you made, come to think of it. Let me repeat. Nobody pays me a penny to waste my time on an unproductive and overly politicized caucus like this one has degenerated into - no thanks to, among others, people who remain confused between policy and politics, and some careerists who appear to treat each committee seat as a battle to be won, as if it were running for office in an election - to the exent of accusing people who don't select them to a committee of malfeasance, double or even triple dipping by standing for much the same nomination across a wide variety of civil society groups [a privilege denied to even the most astute ward heeler in a party based election] ... Before you ask - my day job does not include internet governance anywhere in its JD either, and I don't represent my employer here, or any of the civil society organizations I have been part of since say the late 1990s. Let us say that I keep tilting at these windmills because I don't quite like the agenda the people I oppose are intent on bringing to the table - a complete regression from multistakeholderism by the simple expedient of cherrypicking who they consider civil society and who they don't. And so, as a sort of repayment of these tactics in much the same coin, I call such people "uncivil society" myself, deny the right they frequently arrogate to themselves to speak for civil society, "the global south" etc at large, and oppose their attempts to represent civil society in any meaningful process where they stand for nomination. And to repeat a point I've already made in case it escapes your attention, no - nobody is paying me to do this. McTim, Avri and others you accuse of "encouraging" me - I would say they share a background that I have, and that most of this coterie of uncivil society appears to entirely lack. That would be hands on, operational experience on the Internet and in ICT, instead of a stock in trade that exclusively consists of shrill political brinksmanship and careerism. Civil society is about engagement and policy development, not about politics and careerism - both of which are festering cancers to any kind of meaningful civil society interaction. In fact I was struck by Parminder's statement that these "allegations" impacted his "political career", which kind of reinforces my point here. People who believe otherwise are free to join one or the other political party in their countries - being politically active in a space that calls for political activity sounds ever so much more appropriate than here in civil society. If my believing that makes me a troll, instead of your (twice so far in the past few months) repeating that I am a paid troll makes you completely, utterly ignorant of what a troll is, and a prime example of what I have described above as "uncivil society", then so be it. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 16:21, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > I think I should be clearer in what I said/meant. > > Suresh is a troll. Whether or not he is being paid to disrupt this e-list and harass and attempt to delegitimize Civil Society’s most useful contributor, Parminder, I have no idea and will probably never know. That he and his harassment is being enabled by others on this list for purely political reasons—McTim, Avri, others, is to my mind also quite transparent. > > That this harassment is provoking and meant to be provoking is also quite evident… having someone react to such behavior is not surprising—I would almost certainly react in similar ways in similar circumstances as I guess would most of you. > > The stuff with Parminder is a passing episode and should be settled as such by whatever means are available and immediately. > > The campaign by Suresh as aided and abetted by the others is continuing and has significantly undermined the capacity of the IGC to move forward in these very important times for the Internet. Perhaps this was the intention all along. I don’t know. I think dealing with that requires resources and capacities which sadly, are much beyond the IGC in its current form. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 3:59 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder > > > On 9 Jan 2014, at 1:13 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 09/01/14 11:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Even without that, Parminder's explicit endorsement of multilateral proposals including the CIRP, render him unfit to properly represent the needs and interests of civil society. This is enitrely separate from personality clashes, and just as separate from his tendency to engage in political maneuvring rather than collegial engagement with other stakeholders. > > Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Suresh... you won't deny that you too have been cautioned over your behaviour towards other IGC members (admittedly on the list, not in person). > > If you think both Suresh and Parminder have behaved inappropriately, then you should be against either of them being selected, surely? If you believe both are in the wrong, so we should ignore it, that sounds like a recipe for a continuing problematic culture that is explicitly tolerant of bad behaviour. > I mean, given that even Parminder's supporters, such as Michael, are still saying that he behaves inappropriately (just claim that maybe other people are... well, not as bad, but not perfect either), there surely is a serious problem, and deflecting criticism with 'he isn't the only one' is no longer (if it ever was) appropriate. > I would appreciate an explanation from those, like yourself and Michael, who (explicitly in Michaels case, implicitly in your case) admit that Parminder's behaviour is inappropriate, but want to support him anyway. > > Regards > David > > > And to describe the CIRP as multilateral is an oversimplification, though its original formulation did have significant problems (which should be no surprise, it was a first draft). > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 9 06:16:59 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:16:59 +0000 Subject: [discuss] Cross posting WAS Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> <52ce71f0.8479cc0a.0967.ffffae39SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: In message , at 11:17:58 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Nick Ashton-Hart writes >May I request that the cross posting be discontinued? I am getting >three copies of an increasing proportion of /1net, BestBits and IGC >list traffic and I know I am far from alone. Crossposting is also bad netiquette, because if someone does a "reply to all" then their postings to lists-for-which-they-don't-have-a- subscription will cause them to a bounce message, and also cause the moderators of those lists to have decide whether to accept a posting from a non-subscriber. That's being conservative in what you send. Meanwhile I'm sure I'm not alone in using an email client which de-duplicates such inbound material, and only presents me with one copy. That's me being liberal in what I accept. ["sending-to" tidied up, and in the circumstances apologies for posting this message to two lists]. -- 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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Jan 9 06:26:10 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:26:10 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140109095359.6D53021365F@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> <20140109095359.6D53021365F@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <457B412A-37C1-4721-9074-56F8A45900CC@arin.net> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > At 03:46 09/01/2014, John Curran wrote: >> You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, ARIN is not >> a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or precondition) of the >> Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > John ..... > please let us know who is not endorsing the ISOC OpenStand among the "Lynn and the 11 CEOs"? ARIN did not endorse OpenStand, as ARIN does not conduct standards development and hence it was indeterminate regarding its application to our mission (although quite a few of the principles therein are supported by ARIN in our number resource policy development) > Please do not play with the words. There are five signatorees, then the endorsers and the supporters. No intention of playing with words; in fact, I'd appreciate some more precision in their use. ARIN is not a signatory, endorsor or supporter. > The ARIN's position in itself is of no particular importance. Interesting. You earlier implied that the Montevideo Statement and OpenStand were common steps in more stringent coalition formulation, but now indicate that the actual participants in each step are of no importance? I believe that I'll apply Occam's razor and go with the simpler theory that the participants in each initiative are doing so because they support that particular initiatives purpose and goals. > What is discussed here is the ISOC/ICANN strategy IRT the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77 position over the mutual control of the consolidation of the Internet technology. If there is a "ISOC/ICANN strategy ... over the mutual control of the consolidation of the Internet technology", it would make for informative reading - could you provide a pointer to this? I do know that both ICANN and ISOC support an Internet which is "built and governed in the public interest through unique mechanisms for global multi- stakeholder Internet cooperation", but that's quite a different goal and I don't need any reference for it - it's contained in the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > May I remind you that: > > - "ISOC is a non-profit organization founded in 1992 to provide *leadership* in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world." You can remind me, but I'm quite aware of ISOC and its founding (Jon was member #1 of the Internet Society, my membership number was in the first hundred) > - WCIT has shown that the disagreement is between the notions of "leadership" (ISOC lead) and "MS-ship" (people centered). Is that what you believe WCIT has shown? I was there as well, and I would strongly disagree with not only your conclusion, but your framing on issue in that matter. If you had said "disagreement in notions of the relative merit of multilateral vs multistakeholder", then we might find common ground. > Sao Paulo should help clarfying it as a societal and global evolution of which the framework is to be defined. At this time the Sao Paulo outcomes are unknowable. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 06:56:59 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:56:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Wolf, I do not see why we need to change the rules now as he is the evaluation of the World Summit. During both phases of WSIS I and II, there had PrepCom involving all stakeholders. While the context has evolved, circumstances have marquees time from geneva 2005. 2003 action plan and 2005 agenda were adopted by all parties and it is quite logical that in this assessment process, all stakeholders involved in measuring the ins and outs of the WSIS. 2013/12/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi everybody > > I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the concrete CS > contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for the meeting in > Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road map/plan of action. It > is not a secondary issue how CS channels its ideas into the process, and we > should be represented in a proper way in all committees respecting the > special responsibilities of the local organizers. However, substance comes > first and if we want to have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate > that we make substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and > workable ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an > beyond in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to > human rights and development. > > And BTW, it would be equally important to start a discussion about CS > representation in the WSIS 10+ process. If you read the UNGA resolution, CS > should be shocked. The resolution says that WSIS 10+ (including a potential > third summit in 2015 in Sotchi) will be prepared by an intergovernmental > preparatory committeee. There is nothing in the UN resolution which > recommends similar structures for the civil society (or private sector and > technical community). This goes back to WSIS 2002!!!! It needed two > PrepComs until we hade a CS structure in place which could communicate > (unfortunately not on an equal level) with the intergovernmental committee. > I remember the stormy days in Geneva when the Intergovernmental Committee > had its meetings behind closed doors and we were invited only for five > minutes to a special TOP. > > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the > UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of > the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information > Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis > Agenda; > > 21. Decides to hold, in 2015, the 10-year review summit on the > implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information > Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by > January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended > intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on > the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information > Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, > finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the > modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process > of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit > at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication > Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute > similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be > included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in > 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS > I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group > and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, > established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we > wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions > CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder > (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a > letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive > approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded > and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to > "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal > partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the > Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations > System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate > United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the > Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in > Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the > ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el > Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > 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 > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Thu Jan 9 06:59:55 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:59:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: >Suresh is a troll. Whether or not he is being >paid to disrupt this e-list and harass and >attempt to delegitimize Civil Society’s most >useful contributor, Parminder, I have no idea >and will probably never know. That he and his >harassment is being enabled by others on this >list for purely political reasons­McTim, Avri, >others, is to my mind also quite transparent. > >That this harassment is provoking and meant to >be provoking is also quite evident having >someone react to such behavior is not >surprising­I would almost certainly react in >similar ways in similar circumstances as I guess would most of you. > >The stuff with Parminder is a passing episode >and should be settled as such by whatever means are available and immediately. > >The campaign by Suresh as aided and abetted by >the others is continuing and has significantly >undermined the capacity of the IGC to move >forward in these very important times for the >Internet. Perhaps this was the intention all >along. I don’t know. I think dealing with that >requires resources and capacities which sadly, >are much beyond the IGC in its current form. I must admit I share every single word of this analysis and I do think it applies exactly the same way in relation with the previous list's co-co who has probably left the job for that very reason (so the destructive effect of such attitude is not only to provoke anger and we are all paying it at this moment in very concrete terms). +1 Parminder -1 Suresh (as I discover now that this expression of rejection is being taken into account by the unclear selection process we are living). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 07:08:01 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:38:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> Thank you for your -1 but I don't recall ever self nominating or being nominated to represent the caucus anywhere. Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 17:29, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > >> Suresh is a troll. Whether or not he is being paid to disrupt this e-list and harass and attempt to delegitimize Civil Society’s most useful contributor, Parminder, I have no idea and will probably never know. That he and his harassment is being enabled by others on this list for purely political reasons­McTim, Avri, others, is to my mind also quite transparent. >> >> That this harassment is provoking and meant to be provoking is also quite evident… having someone react to such behavior is not surprising­I would almost certainly react in similar ways in similar circumstances as I guess would most of you. >> >> The stuff with Parminder is a passing episode and should be settled as such by whatever means are available and immediately. >> >> The campaign by Suresh as aided and abetted by the others is continuing and has significantly undermined the capacity of the IGC to move forward in these very important times for the Internet. Perhaps this was the intention all along. I don’t know. I think dealing with that requires resources and capacities which sadly, are much beyond the IGC in its current form. > > I must admit I share every single word of this analysis and I do think it applies exactly the same way in relation with the previous list's co-co who has probably left the job for that very reason (so the destructive effect of such attitude is not only to provoke anger and we are all paying it at this moment in very concrete terms). > > +1 Parminder > -1 Suresh (as I discover now that this expression of rejection is being taken into account by the unclear selection process we are living). > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Thu Jan 9 07:39:08 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:39:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> Message-ID: >Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co >co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject of your insisting expressions. Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 07:50:46 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:20:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> Message-ID: Last post out of far too many I've made here. 1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins. As long as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly opposed. 2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something vitally important - actual participation in the process and making meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. thanks --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > >> Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? > I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject > of your insisting expressions. > > Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to > discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able > to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster > in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) > and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). > > But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) > as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. > > So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 08:29:00 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:29:00 +1300 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> Daniel, Suresh, Michael, Calling a 24 hour time out please! The discussions are not constructive! It might help to think how our posts and discussions can help in building up instead of always tearing down. Words are powerful vehicles. No one is more important than the other, everyone is equal and whilst we all have the right to freely express ourselves, we have to exercise some level of restraint. Sala Sent from my iPad > On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Last post out of far too many I've made here. > > 1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins. As long as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly opposed. > > 2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something vitally important - actual participation in the process and making meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. > > thanks > --srs (iPad) > >> On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >> >> >>> Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? >> I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject >> of your insisting expressions. >> >> Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to >> discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able >> to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster >> in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) >> and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). >> >> But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) >> as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. >> >> So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 9 08:53:46 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:53:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Essentially parminder yelling quite a lot at some people in the room, > Avri in particular felt physically threatened. I'd like to state clearly for the record that Suresh was not present at that meeting and hence does not have any first hand knowledge of what happened, nor the basis for forming an independent opinion on what should be considered to be the essence of it. Parminder did not raise his voice until after he had been verbally personally attacked by multiple people. > With a co co in the room then, he should have been ejected from the > caucus The IGC Charter does not contain any provision that states that if someone “yells” at an IGC meeting, and someone else feels threatened, the person who has yelled must thereupon be “ejected from the caucus”. I'm pretty sure that if the IGC coordinators had invented such a rule in response to the complaint, and acted accordingly, that decision would have been appealed successfully. 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 Thu Jan 9 09:06:17 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:36:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> Message-ID: <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> Which still does not explain why several people other than Avri walked out of the meeting. As McTim says this issue remains open - and I would appreciate hearing from others who were present. The minutes of this meeting remain carefully non committal as to detail. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 19:23, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Essentially parminder yelling quite a lot at some people in the room, >> Avri in particular felt physically threatened. > > I'd like to state clearly for the record that Suresh was not present at > that meeting and hence does not have any first hand knowledge of what > happened, nor the basis for forming an independent opinion on what > should be considered to be the essence of it. > > Parminder did not raise his voice until after he had been verbally > personally attacked by multiple people. > >> With a co co in the room then, he should have been ejected from the >> caucus > > The IGC Charter does not contain any provision that states that if > someone “yells” at an IGC meeting, and someone else feels threatened, > the person who has yelled must thereupon be “ejected from the caucus”. > > I'm pretty sure that if the IGC coordinators had invented such a rule > in response to the complaint, and acted accordingly, that decision > would have been appealed successfully. > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jan 9 09:15:07 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:15:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] priorities Fwd: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations References: Message-ID: <712325E6-78BC-4D0E-BDE8-90E90A885CA2@glocom.ac.jp> Dates of the next IGF consultation seem to have been agreed: 19-20 February. I think there's a WSIS+10 meeting on 17-18 February, perhaps someone could confirm? And also CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation around that time: would be good to hear any news about that, silence for a while. Unfortunately no news about new MAG membership. The February consultation is usually about taking stock --what worked well/poorly in 2013-- and what we want for the 2014 IGF in Istanbul. Last week I suggested a few simple ideas: > > Thoughts on the Bali IGF: > - themes (which worked well, which to keep, to cut, to add?), > - changes in format for the main sessions (better, more needed?), > - workshop assessment and reduced number of workshops (could do with hearing from MAG members about this as they are considering more changes), > - remote access (recommend improvements), > - visa arrangements and other logistics (meeting will be in September, less time for everything.) > > IGF and the April Brazil meeting: relationship (IGF as a means to carry work forward from Brazil?) > Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: January 9, 2014 8:30:57 PM GMT+09:00 > To: MAG List IGF > Subject: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations > > Dear All, > > I take it there are no major objections to having the (combined) Open Consultations and MAG meetings on 19-20 February? > > If so, those will be the days. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 9 09:17:25 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:17:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> Message-ID: <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> On 9 Jan 2014, at 10:06 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Which still does not explain why several people other than Avri walked out of the meeting. > > As McTim says this issue remains open - and I would appreciate hearing from others who were present. > > The minutes of this meeting remain carefully non committal as to detail. I was present and indeed I remained in the room throughout, after some others had left. Parminder's account of the meeting is accurate. In saying this, I do not doubt Avri in saying that she felt physically threatened - because that atmosphere was, indeed, heated - but neither do I doubt Parminder's assurance that he had no intent to make her to feel that way. Can we move on? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 09:21:07 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:21:07 -0600 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20140109142107.GA12597@hserus.net> Getting closure on this event and moving on is and should be considered important. Thank you Jeremy. Jeremy Malcolm [09/01/14 22:17 +0800]: >On 9 Jan 2014, at 10:06 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Which still does not explain why several people other than Avri walked out of the meeting. >> >> As McTim says this issue remains open - and I would appreciate hearing from others who were present. >> >> The minutes of this meeting remain carefully non committal as to detail. > >I was present and indeed I remained in the room throughout, after some others had left. Parminder's account of the meeting is accurate. In saying this, I do not doubt Avri in saying that she felt physically threatened - because that atmosphere was, indeed, heated - but neither do I doubt Parminder's assurance that he had no intent to make her to feel that way. > >Can we move on? > >-- >Dr Jeremy Malcolm >Senior Policy Officer >Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 236 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 09:44:00 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:44:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I arrived after the meeting had started - Carlos and I arrived together. Like Jeremy I stayed until the meeting ended. I was present for the incident under discussion. I agree with Jeremy that Parminder's account of what happened is accurate. I also agree that the tone of the meeting at that point was extremely unpleasant. Deirdre On 9 January 2014 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 9 Jan 2014, at 10:06 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > Which still does not explain why several people other than Avri walked > out of the meeting. > > > > As McTim says this issue remains open - and I would appreciate hearing > from others who were present. > > > > The minutes of this meeting remain carefully non committal as to detail. > > I was present and indeed I remained in the room throughout, after some > others had left. Parminder's account of the meeting is accurate. In > saying this, I do not doubt Avri in saying that she felt physically > threatened - because that atmosphere was, indeed, heated - but neither do I > doubt Parminder's assurance that he had no intent to make her to feel that > way. > > Can we move on? > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Thu Jan 9 10:04:56 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:04:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] priorities Fwd: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations In-Reply-To: <712325E6-78BC-4D0E-BDE8-90E90A885CA2@glocom.ac.jp> References: <712325E6-78BC-4D0E-BDE8-90E90A885CA2@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52CEBA98.8030105@cdt.org> Hi Adam, all As far as I know WSIS meeting is the 17/18, the CSTD WG EC meeting the following week 24-28. Best. On 1/9/2014 2:15 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dates of the next IGF consultation seem to have been agreed: 19-20 February. > > I think there's a WSIS+10 meeting on 17-18 February, perhaps someone could confirm? And also CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation around that time: would be good to hear any news about that, silence for a while. > > Unfortunately no news about new MAG membership. > > The February consultation is usually about taking stock --what worked well/poorly in 2013-- and what we want for the 2014 IGF in Istanbul. Last week I suggested a few simple ideas: > >> Thoughts on the Bali IGF: >> - themes (which worked well, which to keep, to cut, to add?), >> - changes in format for the main sessions (better, more needed?), >> - workshop assessment and reduced number of workshops (could do with hearing from MAG members about this as they are considering more changes), >> - remote access (recommend improvements), >> - visa arrangements and other logistics (meeting will be in September, less time for everything.) >> >> IGF and the April Brazil meeting: relationship (IGF as a means to carry work forward from Brazil?) >> > > > Adam > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: January 9, 2014 8:30:57 PM GMT+09:00 >> To: MAG List IGF >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations >> >> Dear All, >> >> I take it there are no major objections to having the (combined) Open Consultations and MAG meetings on 19-20 February? >> >> If so, those will be the days. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Jan 9 10:19:12 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:19:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Jean-Christophe: You are confusing people by using inaccurate labels. There is no "Department of Trade" in the US, there is a Department of Commerce, and although translating "Commerce" into French may be the same general meaning as "Trade," American readers will get confused if you switch the terms. Same accuracy problem with your reference to the IETF Board. I do not know what the IETF Board is, do you mean the IAB? Or the ISOC Board of Trustees? What is the name of the NSA employee you are referring to? From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:50 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:43, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit : I'm confused. What "grouping" are you stating is under a "direct mandate" of the "US trade department"? Greg Shatan From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:15 PM To: John Curran Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation John, My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: ... It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. Jean-Christophe - Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - >From 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. From: * NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida - Hosted by ARIN - Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s - Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives etc. Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 9 10:53:04 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:53:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Elephants in the Room was Re: ] Nomination In-Reply-To: <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> Message-ID: <52CEC5E0.6080400@acm.org> On 09-Jan-14 08:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > The IGC Charter does not contain any provision that states that if > someone “yells” at an IGC meeting, and someone else feels threatened, > the person who has yelled must thereupon be “ejected from the caucus”. > > I'm pretty sure that if the IGC coordinators had invented such a rule > in response to the complaint, and acted accordingly, that decision > would have been appealed successfully. To be clear, I don't believe I requested that anyone be kicked out of the IGC. I believe I asked the co-cordinators to do something. I would have been satisfied at that point with a note about inappropriate behavior. I never expected an apology. As far as the comparative accounts go, and peoples' judgements of me, all I can say is that there is a world of difference between 'pointing a finger' and 'having a finger in your face'. And 'freaking' is a word often used to avoid unacceptable language. At this point, I have long since given up on this issue ever being handled properly. I accept my punishment for speaking out against the attack and what I have seen as a long history of bullying that never got coordinator action - only those who are bullied are ever criticized; they always bring it on themselves by what the say and beleive. Who knew that would be the prevailing IGC logic. I will continue to lurk on the IGC list, but for the most part don't plan to participate in discussions until it changes its tenor. I will, however, continue reporting on anything worth reporting when there is something worth reporting that I know something about. I also plan to remain a member of the caucus. 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 kstubbs at afilias.info Thu Jan 9 10:55:16 2014 From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:55:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> +1 Sala... This thread is becoming destructive and "off course". (i.e. 41 posts on this issue in the last 24-30 hrs.) Hopefully we can refocus ... Please.. On 1/9/2014 8:29 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Daniel, Suresh, Michael, > > Calling a 24 hour time out please! The discussions are not constructive! It might help to think how our posts and discussions can help in building up instead of always tearing down. Words are powerful vehicles. No one is more important than the other, everyone is equal and whilst we all have the right to freely express ourselves, we have to exercise some level of restraint. > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Last post out of far too many I've made here. >> >> 1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins. As long as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly opposed. >> >> 2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something vitally important - actual participation in the process and making meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. >> >> thanks >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? >>> I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject >>> of your insisting expressions. >>> >>> Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to >>> discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able >>> to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster >>> in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) >>> and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). >>> >>> But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) >>> as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. >>> >>> So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.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 Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Jan 9 11:23:27 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:53:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> Message-ID: <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> On 01/09/2014 09:25 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote: > +1 Sala... > > This thread is becoming destructive and > "off course". (i.e. 41 posts on this issue in the last 24-30 hrs.) > 13 are from a single person - Suresh Ramasubramaniam... who should have long been suspended from IGC, applying the charter rules, for being a troll. Like Mike I have no way of knowing if he is being paid for continuously, consistently attacking one person, many times through ad hominem attacks and lies, but there is no doubt in my mind that he with the help of some of his friends, have been able to paralyse and make ineffective this caucus, which is a far bigger loss for civil society Guru > Hopefully we can refocus ... Please.. > > > > On 1/9/2014 8:29 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Daniel, Suresh, Michael, >> >> Calling a 24 hour time out please! The discussions are not >> constructive! It might help to think how our posts and discussions >> can help in building up instead of always tearing down. Words are >> powerful vehicles. No one is more important than the other, everyone >> is equal and whilst we all have the right to freely express >> ourselves, we have to exercise some level of restraint. >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>> >>> Last post out of far too many I've made here. >>> >>> 1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because >>> propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins. As long >>> as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a >>> political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly >>> opposed. >>> >>> 2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something >>> vitally important - actual participation in the process and making >>> meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this >>> topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. >>> >>> thanks >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>>> On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being >>>>> co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? >>>> I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the >>>> facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject >>>> of your insisting expressions. >>>> >>>> Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I >>>> have often met people like you whose purpose is to >>>> discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the >>>> difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able >>>> to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent >>>> agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster >>>> in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often >>>> manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) >>>> and in this very context there is no such containding consensus >>>> (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). >>>> >>>> But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much >>>> beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) >>>> as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines >>>> stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal >>>> oriented discussion. >>>> >>>> So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let >>>> the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed >>>> as threats. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Jan 9 11:32:00 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:02:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] EC aborts tie-up with Google over security concerns Message-ID: <52CECF00.3080902@ITforChange.net> "The (Indian Election) Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google" :-D regards Guru The Election Commission has decided not to pursue its proposed tie-up with internet giant Google after concerns over national security were raised from several quarters, including major parties. The U.S-based Google had earlier this week made a formal presentation to the Election Commission proposing a tie-up with it for voter facilitation services ahead of Lok Sabha elections. The Commission, in its meeting in New Delhi on Thursday which was attended by Chief Election Commissioner V.S. Sampath and Election Commissioners H.S. Brahma and S.N.A. Zaidi, deliberated on the issue and decided not to go ahead. “After due consideration, the Commission has decided not to pursue it any further,” said an EC official. The EC said Google had proposed to provide electoral look up services for citizens to help in Commission’s efforts for better electoral information services. The Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but had not shared or handed over any data to the internet giant so far and was deliberating on the tie-up with it for using its search engines for voter facilitation. Congress and BJP besides some cyberspace experts had voiced concerns over the proposed tie-up, saying stakeholders should have been consulted before a decision. The Congress legal cell has written to the Chief Election Commissioner raising security concerns over the proposed tie-up and hoped it will not have any effect on the electoral process and national security. BJP also expressed concerns and said the issue could have been discussed first at an all-party meeting by EC. Questioning the EC’s move, a group of cyber security experts had written to the panel amid concerns over sharing of vital data pertaining to Indians to a foreign company. The concerns also come at a time when eyebrows have been raised over leaking of vital data of Indians to United States intelligence agencies as exposed by Edward Snowden. source - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ec-aborts-tieup-with-google-over-security-concerns/article5557857.ece?homepage=true -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC/ www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 9 11:39:16 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:39:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Elephants in the Room was Re: ] Nomination In-Reply-To: <52CEC5E0.6080400@acm.org> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> <52CEC5E0.6080400@acm.org> Message-ID: <52CED0B4.1090601@wzb.eu> Am 09.01.2014 16:53, schrieb Avri Doria: In case anybody is interested I have been doing more or less the same for some time. Most of the time I lurk, though various people's contributions I have given up reading altogether. Occasionally I still hope that this valuable number of subscribers will one day see the light and pull each other together to not only agree on a new set of communication rules but also, collectively, enforce them. jeanette > I will continue to lurk on the IGC list, but for the most part don't > plan to participate in discussions until it changes its tenor. I will, > however, continue reporting on anything worth reporting when there is > something worth reporting that I know something about. I also plan to > remain a member of the caucus. > > avri > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 9 12:01:56 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:31:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] EC aborts tie-up with Google over security concerns In-Reply-To: <52CECF00.3080902@ITforChange.net> References: <52CECF00.3080902@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52CED604.7000609@itforchange.net> The below is the press release that was earlier released by a group of Indian security experts. These kinds of concerns of data safety not just reg personal concerns but also, as importantly, larger social and polical ones will increasingly become mainstay. Indian InfoSec Consortium Press Release *Issue of trust on American companies in wake of disclosures by Edward Snowden* It is shocking that in a country like India which is called worlds software superpower, Election Commission instead of an Indian Company has chosen a foreign company like Google, which has colluded with American Intelligence agencies like NSA( National Security Agency) for Global Cyber spying, to provide electoral registration and facilitation services by providing them the whole database of registered voters in India. This will pose a unprecedented security risk to India, as this data is bound to be surely misused by Google and American agencies for cyber espionage and other surveillance operations by United States. It has been absolutely clear after the Edward Snowden (NSA contractor) leaks in recent months that National Security Agency of United states has been conducting Cyber espionage and technical surveillance across the world through every single means of resources and data available. American Companies including Google have been assisting NSA to conduct cyber espionage and surveillance operations by providing complete access to personal data of their users available on their servers. Above facts which are in the public domain and have also been on record accepted by Presidents of United States of America *Possible Threat to India and misuse of data* Not only has EC decided to make the existing voter database available to Google but they have also reportedly tied up with them to provide online voter registration services. As we are aware that online voter registration form includes personal details like Name, address, Phone numbers, email ids age and family details but to bring it to your notice it will also result in reviling cyber identities of voters to Google like the surfing history, online activities, email and social media accounts and ip addresses too. *This huge amount of personal information that can be easily used to survey upon the targets as per the wishes of American agencies and the break into their systems if necessary*. Google may not only use this information for their advertisements programs which are based on such user details but can also conduct other activities like electoral surveys for American agencies which may at some stage be used to, alter, affect or formulate public opinions in India. Google’s recent survey on most searched political personalities in India is one such example, which can surely result in changing public perceptions and opinions of electorate. *In light of the above concerns the INDIAN INFOSEC CONSORTIUM requests EC to put this tie-up immediately on hold and ensure that no data of any kind is transferred to Google or any other foreign company. For any further steps IIC recommends EC to seek Security clearance from designated cyber security agencies.* *We are also offering to provide indigenous solution for online voter registration service free of cost in Election commission of India may so desire.* http://trak.in/tags/business/2014/01/06/ec-tie-up-google-threat-national-security-infosec-consortium/ On Thursday 09 January 2014 10:02 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > "The (Indian Election) Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure > agreement with Google" :-D > regards > Guru > > The Election Commission has decided not to pursue its proposed tie-up > with internet giant Google after concerns over national security were > raised from several quarters, including major parties. The U.S-based > Google had earlier this week made a formal presentation to the > Election Commission proposing a tie-up with it for voter facilitation > services ahead of Lok Sabha elections. > > The Commission, in its meeting in New Delhi on Thursday which was > attended by Chief Election Commissioner V.S. Sampath and Election > Commissioners H.S. Brahma and S.N.A. Zaidi, deliberated on the issue > and decided not to go ahead. “After due consideration, the Commission > has decided not to pursue it any further,” said an EC official. The EC > said Google had proposed to provide electoral look up services for > citizens to help in Commission’s efforts for better electoral > information services. > > The Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with > Google but had not shared or handed over any data to the internet > giant so far and was deliberating on the tie-up with it for using its > search engines for voter facilitation. Congress and BJP besides some > cyberspace experts had voiced concerns over the proposed tie-up, > saying stakeholders should have been consulted before a decision. The > Congress legal cell has written to the Chief Election Commissioner > raising security concerns over the proposed tie-up and hoped it will > not have any effect on the electoral process and national security. > BJP also expressed concerns and said the issue could have been > discussed first at an all-party meeting by EC. > > Questioning the EC’s move, a group of cyber security experts had > written to the panel amid concerns over sharing of vital data > pertaining to Indians to a foreign company. The concerns also come at > a time when eyebrows have been raised over leaking of vital data of > Indians to United States intelligence agencies as exposed by Edward > Snowden. > > > source - > http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ec-aborts-tieup-with-google-over-security-concerns/article5557857.ece?homepage=true > > -- > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC/ > www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jan 9 12:42:27 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:42:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] EC aborts tie-up with Google over security concerns In-Reply-To: <52CECF00.3080902@ITforChange.net> References: <52CECF00.3080902@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <112237424.21688.1389289347288.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n19> Thanks Guru for this documented information. it's far more than a single information when we read "betwween the lines" the EC statement and the article of The Hindu and when we keep in mind the NSA and Co worldwide scandal where all the (US) Internet giants have been involved ! It should also be a lesson for all other countries for preventing these giants from interfering in countries' policy making and especially in elections. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 09/01/14 17:33 > De : "Guru गुरु" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] EC aborts tie-up with Google over security concerns > > "The (Indian Election) Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google" :-D > regards > Guru >The Election Commission has decided not to pursue its proposed tie-up with internet giant Google after concerns over national security were raised from several quarters, including major parties. The U.S-based Google had earlier this week made a formal presentation to the Election Commission proposing a tie-up with it for voter facilitation services ahead of Lok Sabha elections.The Commission, in its meeting in New Delhi on Thursday which was attended by Chief Election Commissioner V.S. Sampath and Election Commissioners H.S. Brahma and S.N.A. Zaidi, deliberated on the issue and decided not to go ahead. “After due consideration, the Commission has decided not to pursue it any further,” said an EC official. The EC said Google had proposed to provide electoral look up services for citizens to help in Commission’s efforts for better electoral information services.The Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but had not shared or handed over any data to the internet giant so far and was deliberating on the tie-up with it for using its search engines for voter facilitation. Congress and BJP besides some cyberspace experts had voiced concerns over the proposed tie-up, saying stakeholders should have been consulted before a decision. The Congress legal cell has written to the Chief Election Commissioner raising security concerns over the proposed tie-up and hoped it will not have any effect on the electoral process and national security. BJP also expressed concerns and said the issue could have been discussed first at an all-party meeting by EC.Questioning the EC’s move, a group of cyber security experts had written to the panel amid concerns over sharing of vital data pertaining to Indians to a foreign company. The concerns also come at a time when eyebrows have been raised over leaking of vital data of Indians to United States intelligence agencies as exposed by Edward Snowden. > > source -http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ec-aborts-tieup-with-google-over-security-concerns/article5557857.ece?homepage=true -- > Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 12:44:43 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:44:43 -0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S=E3o_P?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Thank you Lorena. And thanks to Pablo for putting it together. Interesting overview. Marília On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi < lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote: > fyi Pablo Hinojosa has made a summary in statistical format of the > coordination and discussion threads in the 1net mailinglist > http://de.slideshare.net/lphinojosa/1net-discuss > Best, > Lorena > > > 2014/1/7 Carolina Rossini > >> Please, clarify who are the "representatives of 1Net". Thank you, >> Carolina >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Thanks very much Hartmut, this is very helpful. >>> >>> I would like to make a formal request to the LOG and the CS liaisons >>> that a strategy for remote participation be given priority on the agenda. I >>> am interested in being involved in this strategy and implementation. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> On 7 January 2014 10:11, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >>>> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >>>> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >>>> committees. >>>> *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since >>>> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >>>> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your support. >>>> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >>>> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance > (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter > * Facebook * Twitter * > Youtube > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Jan 9 13:56:48 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:56:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for your kind edits and worrying about your fellow countrymen. It seems like many non Americans readers were not lost nor confuse on my Department of Business labeling. In courtesy to the American readers in the list, I will make the effort to use the accurate labels and present my sincere apologies for the inaccurate labels. Of course, I wonder if I would as kind in correcting you labeling inaccurately any Indian, French, German, Hungarian ministries label. But let's stay in our asymmetric world. Regarding the NSA employee, I didn't answer as someone did it for me in the list. But, unless such famous IG experts of your trempe do not follow the lasting and revolting NSA affair, I am pretty sure that everyone understood what I referred to. Not you? Were you confused? Again, very sorry to learn about that. Do you need pointers? Should I also apologize for asking you one question: why don't you react on other informations, thoughts, questions, issues, facts that me and others brought to the attention of the lists? Specially since you are a participant in the 1net , and de facto bringing your credibility to it. The discussion is currently rolling on this ghosty truc, and, as others, I tried to figure out if I was dreaming or not when observing what's going on with the ICANN/Brazil conference. Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, and other acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. Considering the number of off-the list emails thanking me for my last posts here, may I admit some disappointment. I would rather hear more of you on your book The Global Politics of Internet Governance, and its last 18-page chapter 'Ideologies and Visions'. You proclaim that "Cyber-libertarinism is not dead." "For it was never really born." You describe it more as a prophetic vision. (Ahhh Prophets and Talibans!!) and you push a "denationalized liberalism" as the perfect concept for getting the invisible hand and the common good reunited in a dramatic marriage of complementarities (commons and property). Well, well, well. This is something that I hope the 1net and other venues will soon debate, if we first come to agreement on the list of what is commons and what is property. We should make sure that Google is in the room by then. The EU and Google, India and Google, France and Google have very opposite views on what is what between commons and property. So do I. I am sure once we have set these lists, our debate will come to an easy and unexpected conclusion. It would also be nice by the same token to look at revenues and budget. Comparing the USD 284 millions of ICANN's forecasted 2014 budget (vs 233 millions in 2013), and the tiny budget of IGF. Look at the money ICANN will spend to take the lead over the Internet governance debate thaks to the revenues of the new gTLD business (sorry Commerce). It already seems like the invisible hand has done its work, as 1net will receive at least 4 or 5 what IGF gets. For a non-existing entity if we understand John Curran correctly, this is quite an achievement. Very much a good "denationalized liberalism" example. No? Another interesting topic of discussion would be the neo-conservative view of a potential (and inevitable) balkanization of Internet. Do you have anything on that? But maybe these are less relevant issues compare to Department of Commerce proper labeling... Sorry for being ironic but the situation deserves a bit of humor. I am expecting more from someone like you - I am still reading your final chapter!! Every one should (no irony here). JC PS: About IETF, the best I can do is to direct you to its website http://www.ietf.org/ But maybe you were concerned about my "IETF board" (well, it might just be a shortcut to mention the area Directors, or ADs, members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group, under the oversight of IAB, etc, etc.....). __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 9 janv. 2014 à 16:19, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Jean-Christophe: > You are confusing people by using inaccurate labels. > > There is no “Department of Trade” in the US, there is a Department of Commerce, and although translating “Commerce” into French may be the same general meaning as “Trade,” American readers will get confused if you switch the terms. > > Same accuracy problem with your reference to the IETF Board. I do not know what the IETF Board is, do you mean the IAB? Or the ISOC Board of Trustees? What is the name of the NSA employee you are referring to? > > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:50 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:43, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit : > > > I’m confused. What “grouping” are you stating is under a “direct mandate” of the “US trade department”? > > Greg Shatan > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:15 PM > To: John Curran > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser > Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > John, > > My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. > > Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. > > JC > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : > > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > ... > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - > > From > 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting > > Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. > > From: > • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN > – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s > – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives > > etc. > > Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations > have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. > Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about > their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, > and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > * * * > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 14:29:52 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <1389295792.20706.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> HI I was not at Bali so I am not aware of what transpired. I follow a lot of the threads of discussion even though I'm not as vocal as I intend to be. Can any one provide an objective account of what transpired ?? regards   Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideas 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, January 9, 2014 8:24 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: On 01/09/2014 09:25 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote: +1 Sala... > >This thread is becoming destructive and >"off course".   (i.e. 41 posts on this issue in the last 24-30 hrs.) > > 13 are from a single person - Suresh Ramasubramaniam... who should have long been suspended from IGC, applying the charter rules, for being a troll. Like Mike I have no way of knowing if he is being paid for continuously, consistently attacking one person, many times through ad hominem attacks and lies, but there is no doubt in my mind that he with the help of some of his friends, have been able to paralyse and make ineffective this caucus, which is a far bigger loss for civil society Guru Hopefully we can refocus ... Please.. > > > >On 1/9/2014 8:29 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Daniel, Suresh, Michael, >> >>Calling a 24 hour time out please! The discussions are not constructive! It might help to think how our posts and discussions can help in building up instead of always tearing down. Words are powerful vehicles. No one is more important than the other, everyone is equal and whilst we all have the right to freely express ourselves, we have to exercise some level of restraint. >> >>Sala >> >>Sent from my iPad >> >> >>On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>Last post out of far too many I've made here. >>> >>>1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins.  As long as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly opposed. >>> >>>2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something vitally important - actual participation in the process and making meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. >>> >>>thanks >>>--srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>>On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? >>>>> I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject >>>>of your insisting expressions. >>>> >>>>Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to >>>>discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able >>>>to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster >>>>in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) >>>>and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). >>>> >>>>But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) >>>>as we all are just  holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. >>>> >>>>So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. >>>> >>>> >>>>--  >>>>This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>believed to be clean. >>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >--- >This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. >http://www.avast.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 14:53:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:53:03 +0700 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <1389295792.20706.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <1389295792.20706.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0a2201cf0d74$6ae69ee0$40b3dca0$@gmail.com> Shaila, I was there and my (always inadequate) memory is consistent in outline with Parminder’s description as confirmed by Jeremy and Deidre. However, as with any event outside of the normal flow there are multiple perspectives based on where one was physically (and psychologically/emotionally) located at the time of the event (cf. Rashoman )… Could we also agree, as various people have been suggesting, that it is now time to lay this episode to rest once and for all. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of shaila mistry Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder HI I was not at Bali so I am not aware of what transpired. I follow a lot of the threads of discussion even though I'm not as vocal as I intend to be. Can any one provide an objective account of what transpired ?? regards Shaila Rao Mistry President Stem Institute Transforming Ideas into Action President JAYCO MMI 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, January 9, 2014 8:24 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: On 01/09/2014 09:25 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote: +1 Sala... This thread is becoming destructive and "off course". (i.e. 41 posts on this issue in the last 24-30 hrs.) 13 are from a single person - Suresh Ramasubramaniam... who should have long been suspended from IGC, applying the charter rules, for being a troll. Like Mike I have no way of knowing if he is being paid for continuously, consistently attacking one person, many times through ad hominem attacks and lies, but there is no doubt in my mind that he with the help of some of his friends, have been able to paralyse and make ineffective this caucus, which is a far bigger loss for civil society Guru Hopefully we can refocus ... Please.. On 1/9/2014 8:29 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Daniel, Suresh, Michael, Calling a 24 hour time out please! The discussions are not constructive! It might help to think how our posts and discussions can help in building up instead of always tearing down. Words are powerful vehicles. No one is more important than the other, everyone is equal and whilst we all have the right to freely express ourselves, we have to exercise some level of restraint. Sala Sent from my iPad On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Last post out of far too many I've made here. 1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins. As long as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly opposed. 2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something vitally important - actual participation in the process and making meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. thanks --srs (iPad) On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta wrote: Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject of your insisting expressions. Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 9 15:08:14 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:08:14 +1100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9EF43B0422894E3588B1D2D6E020B417@Toshiba> I was also present. Yes, Parminder’s account is accurate. But what Parminder doesnt mention (to his credit) is the details of the action which provoked his anger. And, as there is enough hate on this list already, that is perhaps the way things should remain. I can only add that what was said to Parminder which immediately preceded this incident was deeply insulting, totally inappropriate, and if it had been said to me I would have been angry as well and would have left the meeting in protest (and indeed I did leave the meeting with many others) All this immediately preceded the Avri incident. I do understand why Avri felt threatened – loud voices and finger pointing can feel like that, and yes I do believe it was inappropriate. But I also understand what made Parminder extremely angry. Enough said. I think it is time to drop all complaints and appeals about these incidents and move on. Both Avri and Parminder have a right to feel insulted by the events that took place. I would like to think we could apply Chairman Mao’s distinction between “quarrels between the people, and quarrels between the people and the enemies of the people” here, and realise these incidents are definitely in the former category, and move on. There are some more important issues to address and some great challenges for us in coming months. I personally regard both Avri and Parminder as valuable members of civil society with much to contribute here, and I hope we can return to a situation where we can continue to work together for the common good. Ian Peter From: Deirdre Williams Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 1:44 AM To: Internet Governance ; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Norbert Bollow ; David Conrad ; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder I arrived after the meeting had started - Carlos and I arrived together. Like Jeremy I stayed until the meeting ended. I was present for the incident under discussion. I agree with Jeremy that Parminder's account of what happened is accurate. I also agree that the tone of the meeting at that point was extremely unpleasant. Deirdre On 9 January 2014 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 9 Jan 2014, at 10:06 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Which still does not explain why several people other than Avri walked out of the meeting. > > As McTim says this issue remains open - and I would appreciate hearing from others who were present. > > The minutes of this meeting remain carefully non committal as to detail. I was present and indeed I remained in the room throughout, after some others had left. Parminder's account of the meeting is accurate. In saying this, I do not doubt Avri in saying that she felt physically threatened - because that atmosphere was, indeed, heated - but neither do I doubt Parminder's assurance that he had no intent to make her to feel that way. Can we move on? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Jan 9 17:22:35 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:22:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. So maybe 1net dreams of convening some béni-oui-oui, paying them largely enough for them to endorse whatever thoughts will come out of that mascarade but I hope that all the honest brokers of the IG debate will resist the temptation of the $ and leave that empty MS body. Smoke over fluff over smoke... And today we have had an incredible testimony from Seun Ojedeji: ...Now this seems complicated, I had thought the 1Net committee referred to by Hartmut are the nominated 1Net steering/coordinating committee. Adiel's comment above is looking like there are other group of people called 1Net committee aside those nominated. It will be interesting to know that the role of all the nominated 1Net committee members in Brazil event is just to observe (considering amount of data burnt towards committee nomination :) ) And now you want everyone to feel cool relax, and enjoying the ride? Sure, let's go to Vegas, if you do not like Davos. Who's paying for my ticket? Again, this is all very gross. JC about bashing PS 1 Do you say that the NSA affair is no big deal. Who was behind it? The EU? India? Bantu? Nepal? It is very sad that once again the US is taken by the patrol. Again, and again. And you feel like this is not hurting everyone, including the US? And you are surprised of the reactions coming with that affair. Even the I* understood that the situation had deteriorated to an un seen level of distrust. So, they had that to launch their Montevideo reaction and game. With grosse ficelle again. I don't know which consulting firm had this idea of the 1net, but I think it is not worth the money ICANN spent on it. PS 2 The 'I must be on some committee...' Think about the asymmetric side of the story. Think about the resistance to change that we all see. Think about the way Cerf and the old guard launched an anti-UN campaign. Incredible!! Remember that the League of Nations was originated by a US president, never signed by his own congress; remember that for the second attempt, the UN was launched in San Francisco in 1945. What a sad thing to see that the asymmetric role of the US is largely emerging from that fascinating city. Why don't you accept the fact that the failure of the IGF is due largely to a bunch of people (pro-status quo priests) selling to the world their story of an ungovernable space, and all that crap... You have no eyes? And you do not want to see? Le 9 janv. 2014 à 21:03, David Conrad a écrit : > My impression is that if Rod Beckstrom is portrayed as playing a significant role in the development of 1net, then what you are writing could be categorized under "story, fictional" (no criticism of Rod intended, just that he's been out of the picture for some time now). > > I'm sorry, but can someone remind me of the purpose of this list? It seems to have devolved into either a "bash everything even indirectly related to the US because the NSA spies" or a "I must be on some committee because I'm important" noise generator. While some of the conspiracy theories can be entertaining (in the Poe's Law sense) I'm having trouble seeing any particular value in either of these themes. Aren't there more important issues to discuss? > > Regards, > -drc > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> You take out of my thoughts. Beckstrom is a great character in our story. Did you listen to him speaking at the preparatory meeting of the upcoming WEF this January in Davos? 100% fat. He is part of my next paper. A great shot. >> >> Le 9 janv. 2014 à 16:51, JFC Morfin a écrit : >> >>> At 16:04 09/01/2014, Jorge Amodio wrote: >>>> So somebody is calling the shots right ? >>> >>> Jorge, >>> >>> may be are you forgetting who came from where through the National Cyber Security Center to direct ICANN during the three years of the OpenStand boostrap, preparation and signature period (http://www.beckstrom.com). "Leaderless organizations are changing the world": in his book he explained he has experience and expertise in leading and fighting them. We most probably see this expertise and this experience partly in action. It would be surprising he had no say in the choice of his successor. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Beckstrom explains why he disliked the NSA. Cybersurveillance is fun, but the need is for serious cyberdefense for all, i.e. the Sao Paulo's focus by a President who was no upset by the surveillance but by the penetration. "People are creating new ways to break into your network every day". This is what MUST to be stopped. Amaterism is over. Paid or volunteers *professionnals* must take over. >>> >>> jfc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Jan 9 18:07:46 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:07:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <0a2201cf0d74$6ae69ee0$40b3dca0$@gmail.com> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <1389295792.20706.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <0a2201cf0d74$6ae69ee0$40b3dca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:53 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Could we also agree, as various people have been suggesting, that it is now time to lay this episode to rest once and for all. I would imagine laying the episode to rest "once and for all" will need to wait until the co-cos make their decision. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jan 9 18:17:39 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:17:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Jean-Christophe - Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom - "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. Thanks! /John Disclaimer - My views alone. On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! > > As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. > > A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. > > What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... > > Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). > > Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. > ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 18:29:47 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:59:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] EC aborts tie-up with Google over security concerns Message-ID: No idea who the individual members of this 'consortium' are, amd the first I heard of it. There is an over fourteen year old mailing list called India-infosec which has most security practitioners in India, but that list certainly wasn't involved in creating this note below. The english would be far better, just to start with, Plenty of fairly tall claims / not very much understanding of the specific issues in the snowden case, too, when you dig a bit deeper --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 22:31, parminder wrote: > > The below is the press release that was earlier released by a group of Indian security experts. These kinds of concerns of data safety not just reg personal concerns but also, as importantly, larger social and polical ones will increasingly become mainstay. > > > > Indian InfoSec Consortium Press Release > > *Issue of trust on American companies in wake of disclosures by > Edward Snowden* > > It is shocking that in a country like India which is called worlds > software superpower, Election Commission instead of an Indian > Company has chosen a foreign company like Google, which has colluded > with American Intelligence agencies like NSA( National Security > Agency) for Global Cyber spying, to provide electoral registration > and facilitation services by providing them the whole database of > registered voters in India. > > This will pose a unprecedented security risk to India, as this data > is bound to be surely misused by Google and American agencies for > cyber espionage and other surveillance operations by United States. > > It has been absolutely clear after the Edward Snowden (NSA > contractor) leaks in recent months that National Security Agency of > United states has been conducting Cyber espionage and technical > surveillance across the world through every single means of > resources and data available. > > American Companies including Google have been assisting NSA to > conduct cyber espionage and surveillance operations by providing > complete access to personal data of their users available on their > servers. Above facts which are in the public domain and have also > been on record accepted by Presidents of United States of America > > *Possible Threat to India and misuse of data* > > Not only has EC decided to make the existing voter database > available to Google but they have also reportedly tied up with them > to provide online voter registration services. As we are aware that > online voter registration form includes personal details like Name, > address, Phone numbers, email ids age and family details but to > bring it to your notice it will also result in reviling cyber > identities of voters to Google like the surfing history, online > activities, email and social media accounts and ip addresses too. > > *This huge amount of personal information that can be easily used to > survey upon the targets as per the wishes of American agencies and > the break into their systems if necessary*. > > Google may not only use this information for their advertisements > programs which are based on such user details but can also conduct > other activities like electoral surveys for American agencies which > may at some stage be used to, alter, affect or formulate public > opinions in India. > > Google’s recent survey on most searched political personalities in > India is one such example, which can surely result in changing > public perceptions and opinions of electorate. > > *In light of the above concerns the INDIAN INFOSEC CONSORTIUM > requests EC to put this tie-up immediately on hold and ensure that > no data of any kind is transferred to Google or any other foreign > company. For any further steps IIC recommends EC to seek Security > clearance from designated cyber security agencies.* > > *We are also offering to provide indigenous solution for online > voter registration service free of cost in Election commission of > India may so desire.* > > http://trak.in/tags/business/2014/01/06/ec-tie-up-google-threat-national-security-infosec-consortium/ > > >> On Thursday 09 January 2014 10:02 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> "The (Indian Election) Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google" :-D >> regards >> Guru >> The Election Commission has decided not to pursue its proposed tie-up with internet giant Google after concerns over national security were raised from several quarters, including major parties. The U.S-based Google had earlier this week made a formal presentation to the Election Commission proposing a tie-up with it for voter facilitation services ahead of Lok Sabha elections. >> >> The Commission, in its meeting in New Delhi on Thursday which was attended by Chief Election Commissioner V.S. Sampath and Election Commissioners H.S. Brahma and S.N.A. Zaidi, deliberated on the issue and decided not to go ahead. “After due consideration, the Commission has decided not to pursue it any further,” said an EC official. The EC said Google had proposed to provide electoral look up services for citizens to help in Commission’s efforts for better electoral information services. >> >> The Commission had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but had not shared or handed over any data to the internet giant so far and was deliberating on the tie-up with it for using its search engines for voter facilitation. Congress and BJP besides some cyberspace experts had voiced concerns over the proposed tie-up, saying stakeholders should have been consulted before a decision. The Congress legal cell has written to the Chief Election Commissioner raising security concerns over the proposed tie-up and hoped it will not have any effect on the electoral process and national security. BJP also expressed concerns and said the issue could have been discussed first at an all-party meeting by EC. >> >> Questioning the EC’s move, a group of cyber security experts had written to the panel amid concerns over sharing of vital data pertaining to Indians to a foreign company. The concerns also come at a time when eyebrows have been raised over leaking of vital data of Indians to United States intelligence agencies as exposed by Edward Snowden. >> >> source - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ec-aborts-tieup-with-google-over-security-concerns/article5557857.ece?homepage=true >> -- >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Director, IT for Change >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 18:29:53 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:29:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <9EF43B0422894E3588B1D2D6E020B417@Toshiba> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <7875E31B-C043-4482-81EB-EF94DEF0A090@hserus.net> <20140109145346.528a3fce@quill> <6651B857-A3FB-43A2-B88C-1C66FDC4A4D4@hserus.net> <9A061E1A-3E91-4A79-A053-2FA498D83F88@ciroap.org> <9EF43B0422894E3588B1D2D6E020B417@Toshiba> Message-ID: Amen to that, Ian. mc On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I was also present. > > Yes, Parminder’s account is accurate. > > But what Parminder doesnt mention (to his credit) is the details of the > action which provoked his anger. And, as there is enough hate on this list > already, that is perhaps the way things should remain. I can only add that > what was said to Parminder which immediately preceded this incident was > deeply insulting, totally inappropriate, and if it had been said to me I > would have been angry as well and would have left the meeting in protest > (and indeed I did leave the meeting with many others) > > All this immediately preceded the Avri incident. I do understand why Avri > felt threatened – loud voices and finger pointing can feel like that, and > yes I do believe it was inappropriate. But I also understand what made > Parminder extremely angry. > > Enough said. I think it is time to drop all complaints and appeals about > these incidents and move on. Both Avri and Parminder have a right to feel > insulted by the events that took place. > > I would like to think we could apply Chairman Mao’s distinction between > “quarrels between the people, and quarrels between the people and the > enemies of the people” here, and realise these incidents are definitely in > the former category, and move on. There are some more important issues to > address and some great challenges for us in coming months. I personally > regard both Avri and Parminder as valuable members of civil society with > much to contribute here, and I hope we can return to a situation where we > can continue to work together for the common good. > > > > Ian Peter > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 9 18:53:09 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:23:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> First, I accept Ian's retelling of the situation at Bali as an argument that spiraled out of control. Mutual and sincere expressions of regret from each of the parties in that argument would in that case, suffice, and in fact would be the decent thing to do. That said - There doesn't seem much point in my repeating denials that I am being paid for any of this. So if you want to keep believing that someone is paying me to participate on this list, it is a free country and there are people who believe anything at all. There is this old maxim of propaganda that repeating a falsehood often enough makes people believe it is true, so do go on claiming that if you like. Unless you would prefer to declare that aliens are mind controlling Obama. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Jan-2014, at 21:53, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 01/09/2014 09:25 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote: >> +1 Sala... >> >> This thread is becoming destructive and >> "off course". (i.e. 41 posts on this issue in the last 24-30 hrs.) > > 13 are from a single person - Suresh Ramasubramaniam... who should have long been suspended from IGC, applying the charter rules, for being a troll. > > Like Mike I have no way of knowing if he is being paid for continuously, consistently attacking one person, many times through ad hominem attacks and lies, but there is no doubt in my mind that he with the help of some of his friends, have been able to paralyse and make ineffective this caucus, which is a far bigger loss for civil society > > Guru > > >> Hopefully we can refocus ... Please.. >> >> >> >>> On 1/9/2014 8:29 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Daniel, Suresh, Michael, >>> >>> Calling a 24 hour time out please! The discussions are not constructive! It might help to think how our posts and discussions can help in building up instead of always tearing down. Words are powerful vehicles. No one is more important than the other, everyone is equal and whilst we all have the right to freely express ourselves, we have to exercise some level of restraint. >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> Last post out of far too many I've made here. >>>> >>>> 1. I react - mostly to certain people, on certain topics - because propaganda, unless countered, if left unchallenged, wins. As long as you have people who, by their own admission, treat this as a political exercise, what they do has to, on principle, be strongly opposed. >>>> >>>> 2. I agree that these discussions have distracted us from something vitally important - actual participation in the process and making meaningful contributions. Which is why my first contribution to this topic was to endorse Adam's candidature for this nomination. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>>> On 09-Jan-2014, at 18:09, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Beyond that - are you saying I had a hand in Izumi san not being co co any longer? Or is this some other individual you have in mind? >>>>> I am obviously refering to Norbert Bollow who resigned in spite the facts many people asked him to reconsider and who was also subject >>>>> of your insisting expressions. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing personal with you as in my large civil society career I have often met people like you whose purpose is to >>>>> discredit any civil society attempt to build something useful; the difference is that in almost all the case civil society was able >>>>> to overcome differences of visions to resist to such permanent agressions (do you realize your are from far the number one poster >>>>> in this list reacting to every single mail and quite often manipulating facts or positions as you did with my last mail?) >>>>> and in this very context there is no such containding consensus (this is why one wonders what interests are using you). >>>>> >>>>> But I suppose we could admit together that what is at stake is much beyond persons (Parminder, Norbert, you or whoever) >>>>> as we all are just holder of public positions (even sometines stereotypes) and avoid creating a new thread on this personal oriented discussion. >>>>> >>>>> So I wish we could agree to come back to the real stakes and let the diversity express across people without taking fingers pointed as threats. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> --- >> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. >> http://www.avast.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Jan 9 18:58:07 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:58:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks John, Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : > Jean-Christophe - > > Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given > his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. I share your view on this. > > References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! > > - > "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. > > Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing > theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. Night JC > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer - My views alone. > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >> >> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >> >> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >> >> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >> >> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). > >> >> Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. >> ... > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 9 20:25:48 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:25:48 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5B683298-EB9F-4CB3-AB23-8DCE4606CE84@gmail.com> Jon Postel died in a California Hospital in October 1998 from complications after heart surgery. During this time period ICANN was being established. There was no connection between the two events. It is insulting to characterize Jon's exit as a "gentle move," although he was a gentle guy who was widely respected for the thought and work that he put into the creation and evolution of the early Internet. Rod's accession to his WEF position and ICANN's interest in being present at the WEF are independent events. Rod has no current connection with ICANN. There is no conspiracy here. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks John, > > Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : > >> Jean-Christophe - >> >> Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given >> his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. > I share your view on this. > >> >> References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom > Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! >> >> - >> "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." > > ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. >> >> Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing >> theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. > > I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. > And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. > > That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. > > Night > JC > >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimer - My views alone. >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> >>> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >>> >>> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >>> >>> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >>> >>> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >>> >>> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). >> >>> >>> Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. >>> ... >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 22:06:28 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:36:28 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) Message-ID: I am just not sure he deliberately intended to be insulting here. I would urge a liberal application of hanlon's razor when reading his email. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "George Sadowsky" To: "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" Cc: , "John Curran" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" , "1Net List" Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) Date: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 6:55 AM Jon Postel died in a California Hospital in October 1998 from complications after heart surgery. During this time period ICANN was being established. There was no connection between the two events. It is insulting to characterize Jon's exit as a "gentle move," although he was a gentle guy who was widely respected for the thought and work that he put into the creation and evolution of the early Internet. Rod's accession to his WEF position and ICANN's interest in being present at the WEF are independent events. Rod has no current connection with ICANN. There is no conspiracy here. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks John, > > Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : > >> Jean-Christophe - >> >> Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given >> his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. > I share your view on this. > >> >> References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom > Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! >> >> - >> "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." > > ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. >> >> Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing >> theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. > > I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. > And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. > > That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. > > Night > JC > >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimer - My views alone. >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> >>> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >>> >>> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >>> >>> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >>> >>> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >>> >>> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much wi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Jan 10 02:13:34 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:13:34 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <65D53B74-84F8-42B4-84BF-738B51BEEC39@theglobaljournal.net> I would certainly not go into a conspiracy here. I would simply emphasize the fact that at the time the enormous pressure on him was certainly not of great help regarding his personal health. You are right to say that Postel just passed away, like we will all do. His 'exit' is not about his death by underlies the way he was taken off the Internet pre-historic governance road. In the months before his passing away, the overall 'governance' went through a complete reshuffle. As he resisted the move, Postel went through a rather hard time, facing Magaziner's assignment to transform the by-then governance of the Internet into something different, something that could be given to the USG, which would officially give it back to a new entity labeled ICANN. Had the USG to take into its hands, and anymore right to give to a Californian non profit with no check and balance except from the Department of Commerce? Since then ICANN has never proved strong enough to become independent from its master. This wrong turn in digital history has been more than documented but that many tend to ignore. So I feel I can stop here on that. I do not see conspiracy here, but plain politics and power game. That sounds to me like having a fresh memory is very useful when we think of building a new system of governance in the context of international data and meta-data. As the concentration of power is highly asymmetrical, we can obviously expected a strong resistance to changing the status quo. Very common sense. Not true? Until, people will call a cat a cat in the current debate, I do not see much progress coming. Would you say the Brazilian/Icann conference is a model of good governance? When I look at 1net, it looks like proof of the contrary. Do you see a conspiracy there? Usual politics I would say. Brazil has certainly something to win by giving away an initial conference called by a very upset Rousseff. We will soon enough learn about what is the bargain. Now we have more or less a Brazilian/Icannesque roadshow. Brazil will launch its digital magna carta and more or less nothing will change. Nice job Dilma. Le 10 janv. 2014 à 01:14, Jorge Amodio a écrit : > > I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. > > Well, well, I think that now you just crossed the line showing how a delusional jerk you are. > > Jon Postel didn't gentle exit anything, he just passed away due to illness at the time ICANN was taking form. > > If you really want to contribute some reasonable opinion, constructive or not, do so, but this constant stream of conspiracy theories and non-sense is getting extremely boring and useless. > > -Jorge > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Jan 10 02:26:59 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:26:59 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: <5B683298-EB9F-4CB3-AB23-8DCE4606CE84@gmail.com> References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> <5B683298-EB9F-4CB3-AB23-8DCE4606CE84@gmail.com> Message-ID: Le 10 janv. 2014 à 02:25, George Sadowsky a écrit : > Jon Postel died in a California Hospital in October 1998 from complications after heart surgery. During this time period ICANN was being established. There was no connection between the two events. Every one knows about the heart surgery Georges. I made a comment on this directly to Jorge. You are misleading people when there is an obvious link between pre-ICANN and post-ICANN governances. Postel was part of that link and resisting the shift. > > It is insulting to characterize Jon's exit as a "gentle move," although he was a gentle guy who was widely respected for the thought and work that he put into the creation and evolution of the early Internet. Insulting Postel memory is clear to me : to deny his resistance to the USG takeover and his high concern about where IG was going to end. We have now a small taste of where it went since then. > > Rod's accession to his WEF position and ICANN's interest in being present at the WEF are independent events. Rod has no current connection with ICANN. There is no conspiracy here. Sure, sure! But have fun, and listen to what he said - by the way, I don't think RB gained any specific position at the WEF - I will check with the WEF. He appeared as a panelist on the Future of Internet Multistakeholder Governance. I also have to check the dates (ICANN48 and that WEF meeting were maybe conflicting on the same agenda slot) Would you like to label this a conspiracy? As you wish. But again, certainly not in my eyes. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Thanks John, >> >> Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : >> >>> Jean-Christophe - >>> >>> Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given >>> his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. >> I share your view on this. >> >>> >>> References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom >> Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! >>> >>> - >>> "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." >> >> ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. >>> >>> Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing >>> theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. >> >> I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. >> And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. >> >> That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. >> >> Night >> JC >> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer - My views alone. >>> >>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >>> >>>> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >>>> >>>> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >>>> >>>> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >>>> >>>> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >>>> >>>> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). >>> >>>> >>>> Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. >>>> ... >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 06:18:43 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:48:43 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Meeting_in?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Bill I appreciate the clear statement of your view, which is consistent with what you have been saying for many weeks. I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful). I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. parminder PS: Marking to IGC, where I would like this issue to be put to vote. On Friday 10 January 2014 04:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:31 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> We need to first remind the LOG, no, civil society wants to directly >> talk to LOG > > Once again, please, some participants from two civil society networks > who were in Bali want to talk directly to the LOG rather than through > the people they put on the 1net SC to, um, talk to the LOG (and who > indeed have asked the 1net to communicate for them to the LOG). > >> I would request IGC and BB list to take a vote from the membership >> whether civil society wants an independent status and direct >> relationship to the Brazil meeting, or do it only as part of 1Net. >> This is urgently required. > > I agree, this has been going on for two months now. Some folks saying > this is what IGC and BB folks in Bali agreed and that’s our final > position, others saying other things, and most IGC members and BB > subscribers (there are no members) unaware, unconcerned, or in any > event not weighing in. It’s causing continuing confusion in the LOG, > the 1Net SC, other stakeholder groups, etc. So whether there’s rough > consensus that the position is unchanged or changed in light of the > evolution since Bali, let’s please get clear on it so the > communication with others stops causing confusion. > > I am a IGC member and BB subscriber and I favor working through the > 1net SC as the Brazilians have asked. I’m also a 1net SC member > representing academia. > > Thanks > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 06:33:55 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:03:55 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Meeting_?= =?UTF-8?Q?in_S=C3=A3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_L?= =?UTF-8?Q?OG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> References: <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFDAA3.4080503@itforchange.net> IGC-ians This is regarding the email I sent just now... In my below email I discuss what was a decision taken by IGC and also BestBits (alongwith two other CS networks) which was to have civil society groups deal directly with the Brazilian organisers and not go through 1Net, as the single conduit. I see that many people in key positions have unilaterally - by omission or commission - allowed that civil society position to slip and we are in a situation where 1Net has indeed become the single conduit to the Brazil meeting for all non-gov stakeholders. I think it is a key decision to be taken by IGC and other groups whether they want to be essentially mediated by the 1Net entity, or want to maintain their independent status and deal directly with the Brazil meeting, and its organisers. 1Net, as some of you would know, was formed at ICANN's initiative (pl see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm ) with an agenda which is ICANN's. I have no problem with us dealing with 1Net or even having joint positions on specific issues with it if needed. I do not agree to appoint 1Net as civil society’s conduit to the Brazil meeting. In fact, the plan is larger, to have 1Net as a standing platform, and so this servitude of the CS to this ICANN initiative will be enduring. This is not acceptable. Civil society should step in now and stop it. This being a constitutional issue about what IG related civil society is, its independence from power blocs, and its future, I request IGC leadership to take a vote from the IGC membership on this issue. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:01:22 +0530 From: parminder To: Joana Varon CC: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Dear Joana/ other Liaisons (or who were supposed to be Liaisons), Again, my responses are strictly political and not personal... Pl see inline On Thursday 09 January 2014 06:18 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Sorry for not clarifing this yesterday, was having hard time to find > ur msg again in the deep sea of emails in my inbox. > > All I can say is that, unfortunately, the Brazilian government has > never taken into consideration the role of the liaisons. Since CS groups gave you the mandate, if you were unable to fulfil it, this should have been immediately reported back to us. On the other hand, even when I repeatedly, and Ian and Jeremy once each, asked for 'what is happening', there has been no report. This in not my understanding is how Liaisons work. There is a little point knowing this now, when this thing called 1Net, to confront whose likely single-conduit role you all were appointed as liaisons, is firmly in place and driving the process. As a person who took a primary role in insisting that we appoint Liaisons immediately, in face of a lot of foot dragging among many, and also suggested that 4 Brazilians at hand be asked to do this job, I must express complete disappointment on how this role has been played... In fact, I know of nothing at all that got done vis a vis this role. I am happy to be told otherwise. > We were never invited to any single meeting that has been assembled > with ICANN and interactions were always about us knocking on everyones > doors to try to be informed. Again, no one told anyone of us... Again, the word is 'Liaison'... Why did you not report this back and we would have wrote another letter, or found another strategy to deal with this situation. > On the other hand, this nomination did serve as an incentive for the > four/three of us to get together and work to assemble information > through different channels and communicate whatever we could grasp to > the international community. Can you provide me an instance of such a communication. > As Carolina has already explained in a previous email exchange with > you. If it was not good enough, be assure, we have been doing our best. I am not convinced... I did not know till date the fact now being presented that despite your attempts you were not allowed into any of the meetings, and given no information. Which simply means that Brazilians completely ignored the letter that 4 key civil society networks wrote to them - after all these groups having communicated the same things to the Brazilians in person at Bali... Why dont you, and we as civil society, consider this a serious issue? I do. (I am positive that if they have been treating civil society like it it is because we are allowing them to treat us like this. Why? The question is, why?) > > My email to Glaser mentioning to consider 1net steering was because he > mentioned that the meeting was with "LOG and representatives from 1net". We need to first remind the LOG, no, civil society wants to directly talk to LOG, that was the mandate given to you by CS groups in Bali... We dont have to simply accept things, which in fact go expressly against the mandate given to the Liaisons which is to not accept 1Net as the conduit for CS interactions with the Brazilians... Please let me know if you think that this was not the mandate, and we can discuss it here. > If that was the scope of the conversation, my natural reaction was to > wonder: which 1net representative? If 1net had just passed through a > process of electing representatives, why not referring to the elected > ones? Basically, I was just working in the scope of possibilities that > the LOG has given us with that email. Again, the CS letter clearly said, you 3 or 4 as our Liaisons have to deal directly with the Brazilians and not through 1Net.... I know I am repeating it again and again but that was pretty much what we decided at Bali when the role was given to you... > > The capacity of 1net to be a truly multistakeholder is yet to be seen. > The steering have just been formed. So, of course, I'm not defending > 1net's role, People have a right to take whatever political position they want to take vis a vis 1Net.... But as CS Liaisons given a role which was expressly to develop direct conduits to LOG (a mandate given in the express context of 1Net wanting to be the conduit) I think you needed to report back to us before you took the alternative approach, which was directly opposed to the mandate given to you.. Please no hard feelings... Everyone is doing our political jobs here, and I have the job to defend the interests and constituencies that I work for... It is very disappointing that after long discussions took place on both IGC and BB lists where there was clear preponderance of view that civil society should act independently and not through 1Net, which we all know where it comes from and what its strategic objective is (read ICANN resolution if you have any doubt), a good part of the leadership, whether through acts of commission or commission has landed civil society right in the lap of 1Net. This remains as unacceptable to me now as it was at Bali and pre Bali... Others may have changed their views, but I havent. (The least one can do however if to inform that their views have been changed, and the reason for it). And well, this is too important a matter for a small group of people to decide - whether IG civil society would want an independent and direct-relationship status at global IG meetings or go only through an ICANN developed space. I am sure that majority of actors in the IGC and BB want an independent status and a direct / un-intermediated relationship with meeting organisers. And not have to do as a part of platform created by ICANN and dominated by global big business. I would request IGC and BB list to take a vote from the membership whether civil society wants an independent status and direct relationship to the Brazil meeting, or do it only as part of 1Net. This is urgently required. To me, this is almost a constitutive issue for IG related civil society. parminder > as we still don't know what it is. My intention was to pass this > message to LOG: if 1net is meant to be legitimate, or is meant to be > the conduit by any form, which is questionable, then, please, refer > also to elected representatives of that network. Otherwise, we would > be there just to legitimate something else, I role that I'm not > comfortable with. > > That's basically it. Sorry if my msg was unclear to you by any chance > (I know that, at least for the other liaisons, it would not be taken > as any kind of action to exclude then. We cannot be excluded, if we > were never included. We are working in the sense that if two ears or > one mouth from the three of us in on the room, it is already a win.) > > Looking forward for the committees to be formed so we can stop jumping > at people's windoms to collect information or drop suggestions that > might not be taken into consideration. So we could focus on what > pleasures me the most: research and building collective solutions. > > Hope it makes it clear to you. I know you are annoyed by many > questions, but we are all annoyed and anxious too. Just the reactions > are different, I've been trying to keep the positivity and patience, > as the challenge LOG is facing is huge and I still trust they have the > best of intentions. Maybe I'm naive. > > all the best > > joana > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Dear Glaser, >> >> Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the >> steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the >> next planning meetings? >> >> At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives >> in the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at >> least representatives from international civil society should >> attend such meetings to report back to it's constituencies. >> >> As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now >> trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing >> it's representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I >> think that at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to >> attend and report back should be a way forward to start opening >> up the planing process while the Br committees are not formed yet. > > Joana > > Before you were sent to 1Net by some CS groups (for a task never > too clear to me) you were asked to be CS Liaison to the Brazilians > to ensure that CS has a direct relationship with them and our that > relationship is not mediated. I remember that at Bali your views > were also quite strong on this issue. Now you are slipping in an > acceptance of the 1Net's mediating role as fait accompli, and > telling us that you are trying to contribute to building > legitimacy for 1Net.. > > I must admit, i remain thoroughly surprised by whatever is > happening, and in the closed manner that it is happening... > > Hope that we can hear some words of clarification from you and > others... > > parminder > >> IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. >> >> all the best >> >> joana >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> researcher >> Center for Technology and Society >> Fundação Getulio Vargas >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser >> > wrote: >> >> >> _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> >> _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 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 pimienta at funredes.org Fri Jan 10 07:18:05 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:18:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in__?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the__L?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?OG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: >I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... ... >PS: Marking to IGC, where I would like this issue to be put to vote. My view (hard to say my "clear" view in the middle of confusion) is that when, in a civil society virtual context: - the number of parallel lists is blooming - more than 80% of the time is invested in who shall speak on our behalf rather than what is our common position - the selection processes lack some level of definition - ad-hominem perceptions are (objectively or subjectively) in the increase - there is emptyness in some constitutional slots in our process and no scheduled replacement - and the agenda stakes are high and close... it is indeed time to use voting (or surveying) as a way to understand where the group stand and from there get organized. The challenge would remain on deciding the matters to be voted (surveyed) but I hope the quality of people around should be a warrant for consensus on those matters. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 08:14:13 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:44:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... parminder On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: > +1 on Adam > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >> >> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >> >> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >> >> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >> >> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >> >> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >> >> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >> >> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >> >> >> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >> >> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >> >> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >> >> Adam >> >> >>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>> >>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>> >>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>> >>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>> >>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>> >>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Carolina Rossini >>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>> To: parminder >>> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>> >>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>> :-) >>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>> hugs >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> Dear folks, >>>> >>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>> Carolina >>> >>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>> >>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>> >>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>> >>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>> >>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>> >>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 10 08:29:56 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:29:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. Adam On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: > The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... > > This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. > > Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. > > What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >> +1 on Adam >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>> >>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>> >>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>> >>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>> >>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>> >>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>> >>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>> >>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>> >>> >>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>> >>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>> >>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>>> >>>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>>> >>>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>>> >>>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>>> >>>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>>> >>>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Carolina Rossini >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>>> To: parminder >>>> Cc: >>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>>> >>>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>>> :-) >>>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>>> hugs >>>> C >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>> >>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>> >>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>> >>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>> >>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>> >>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>> Open Technology Institute >>>> New America Foundation >>>> // >>>> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 10 08:36:23 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:36:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Daniel and Parminder, We DO vote in the IGC, just not on decisions like these. We vote in elections and for Charter Amenments. For Statements, we try to reach consensus: Please re-read the IGC Charter: http://igcaucus.org/charter "Decisions The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. Statements and representation at meetings Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary: The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the caucus in the past. Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as soon after their presentation as possible." On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... > > ... > > PS: Marking to IGC, where I would like this issue to be put to vote. > > > My view (hard to say my "clear" view in the middle of confusion) is that > when, in a civil society virtual context: > - the number of parallel lists is blooming > - more than 80% of the time is invested in who shall speak on our behalf > rather than what is our common position > - the selection processes lack some level of definition > - ad-hominem perceptions are (objectively or subjectively) in the increase > - there is emptyness in some constitutional slots in our process and no > scheduled replacement > - and the agenda stakes are high and close... > > it is indeed time to use voting (or surveying) as a way to understand where > the group stand and from there get organized. > > The challenge would remain on deciding the matters to be voted (surveyed) > but I hope the quality of people around should be a > warrant for consensus on those matters. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 09:04:17 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:34:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFFDE1.4080703@itforchange.net> Can someone tell me one reason why the LOG wants 1Net to relay the names of 3 stakeholder group nominees to them. Why cant they receive these names directly. CGI.Br has much more resources and manpower than CSTD and IGF, who, with very poor secretarial support, have done such a job of receiving nominees names and forming committees rather well. And from what I know 1Net really does not exist in any particular shape or body yet.... There is simply no logic here, other than that ICANN, with the 1Net front has been ramming its way into the Brazilian meeting organising space, and LOG has been giving way... Money, what I understand Fadi would basically be meeting LOG today about, may be a factor, and I simply do not like the role of money in public spaces shaping roles. But what is ICANN's reason? That s the question.... You want to make it more intriguing.... Though I dont have the time to keep repeating things which happened in plain sight, bec as they say you cannot wake up someone who isnt asleep... but , briefly 1. At the IGF 1Net was launched as a 'movement', and rather aggressively... They were trying to take so much control of the Brazil meeting that Brazilian gov reps were visibly embarrassed, and even upset.... 2. Sometime in Dec, 1Net coordinator announced that they will appoint/ coordinate the non gov stakeholder reps to the Brazilian committee 3. A meeting of the Brazilian organisers on 27th Dec (?) told them, and everyone else, no you would not do it, we will handle it ourselves (there are mails to the BB list in this regard, which i reposted 2 days back) 4. Early Jan another meeting of LOG tells us, well, we have changed our mind, and it is 1Net who will organise non gov relationships with LOG (Carolina in a recent email has descried it as 1Net filtering everything to 1Net) 5. so many CS persons get together and decided in Bali that, no, CS wont mediate its relationship through 1Net, but deal with Brazilians directly, and gave 4 Liaisons that specific role... Slowly that resolve disappears and the leadership who was supposed to assert this decision of the 4 CS networks, seem to be itself getting dissolving into 1Net, and so when the LOG turn around took place, no one was complaining. 6 Discussions are rife that 1Net will remain a standing platform for non gov stakeholders, beyond Brazil meeting, and keep engaging as one with global IG spaces... Everything that has been announced from 1Net side has come true. such is it its power, so, keep watching.... 7 ........... 8 .............. Many other events making a rather intriguing chain... And you want us to just be complacent, and trust everyone... When the UN but moves the slightest in its bed, we are ready to develop all kind of projections... So many are here already projecting what they are going to do in 2015, and what is needed to stop them... And with ICANN (how much is it the US establishment?) we should simply trust and wait, and things will turn up well... Sure. parminder On Friday 10 January 2014 06:59 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. > > To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: > >> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... >> >> This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. >> >> Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. >> >> What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >>> +1 on Adam >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>>> >>>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>>> >>>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>>> >>>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>>> >>>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>>> >>>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>>> >>>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>>> >>>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>>> >>>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>>> >>>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>>>> >>>>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>>>> >>>>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>>>> >>>>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>>>> >>>>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>>>> >>>>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Carolina Rossini >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>>>> To: parminder >>>>> Cc: >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>>>> >>>>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>>>> :-) >>>>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>>>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>>>> hugs >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>>> >>>>> Carolina >>>>> >>>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>>> >>>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>>> >>>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>>> >>>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>>> >>>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>>> >>>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>>> Open Technology Institute >>>>> New America Foundation >>>>> // >>>>> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 09:12:30 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:42:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=A3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_a?= =?UTF-8?Q?nd_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFFFCE.7040605@itforchange.net> Dear McTim When Jeremy was one of the cocos, online voting has been used to get the sense of the group.. Getting organised under the ICANN umbrella for an important global meeting, and quite likely staying like that subsequently, is, as I said, a constitutional issue for this group, and civil society in general. Such a decision, or stopping it, needs forming a direct connection with the full membership.. parminder On Friday 10 January 2014 07:06 PM, McTim wrote: > Dear Daniel and Parminder, > > > We DO vote in the IGC, just not on decisions like these. > > We vote in elections and for Charter Amenments. > > For Statements, we try to reach consensus: > > Please re-read the IGC Charter: http://igcaucus.org/charter > > "Decisions > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. > When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be > jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the > purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming > majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any > dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. > Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been > made to accommodate minority points of view. > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the > consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty > eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of > the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the > appeals team. > Statements and representation at meetings > Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be > discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision > procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be > occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and > will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require > a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still required that > the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as > soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary: > The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the > caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot > be discussed by the caucus within the time available. > In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with > the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect > the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of > those members who are physically present at the meeting. > If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in > face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another > participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be > made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. > Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and > coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. > Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic > principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. > Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed > general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and > documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the caucus > in the past. > Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, > preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as > soon after their presentation as possible." > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >> I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... >> >> ... >> >> PS: Marking to IGC, where I would like this issue to be put to vote. >> >> >> My view (hard to say my "clear" view in the middle of confusion) is that >> when, in a civil society virtual context: >> - the number of parallel lists is blooming >> - more than 80% of the time is invested in who shall speak on our behalf >> rather than what is our common position >> - the selection processes lack some level of definition >> - ad-hominem perceptions are (objectively or subjectively) in the increase >> - there is emptyness in some constitutional slots in our process and no >> scheduled replacement >> - and the agenda stakes are high and close... >> >> it is indeed time to use voting (or surveying) as a way to understand where >> the group stand and from there get organized. >> >> The challenge would remain on deciding the matters to be voted (surveyed) >> but I hope the quality of people around should be a >> warrant for consensus on those matters. >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Fri Jan 10 09:38:45 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:38:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in__?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E3_o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the__?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Mc Tim, I mentionned on purpose the expression "surveying". It is a simple and often efficient way to have a virtual community (VC) get back to focus. A short set of questions, the process of statistics from the answers and some analysis of the results is quite often a good solution to reduce confusion, take the pulse and help a VC re-focus to the real stakes. You can also consider it as a tool to help consensus reaching when it becomes harder. You can take it also as an auto-evaluation method for a VC and one may wonder if IGF would not need some type of evaluation after some years of running. Finally I (and I guess many other virtual community managers) have used many times survey/evaluation in the past as an effective crisis resolution method within a VC. As for voting I do feel we need to do it after Norbert Bollow resigned from Co-Co responsibility and I do not see this process organized. Best Daniel -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 10 09:39:32 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:39:32 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder wrote: > I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful). > > I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has certainly been made clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been made clear to the respective lists, but evidently not. So let me restate my understanding of it: The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the Brazil meeting is a discrete event. Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated that the 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint the Brazil committee reps, and they were not selected in the expectation that do such a thing. Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, or....) As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they took interim roles in liaising both with the 1net group and the Brazil organisers, but these interim appointments are superseded as more permanent appointments are made - initially of the new 1net steering committee representatives, and (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil committees. The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the Brazil committees go through the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because it flew in the face of what we thought we had clearly told them about our process. But Ian's response is that we will send our selections directly to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee. Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit of a compromise. Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the coordination group. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 10 09:47:18 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:47:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CFFDE1.4080703@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> <52CFFDE1.4080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:04 PM, parminder wrote: > Can someone tell me one reason why the LOG wants 1Net to relay the names of 3 stakeholder group nominees to them. Why cant they receive these names directly. I think the only people who can answer are members the Brazilian committee. Perhaps you and I should try to find out from them. I'll send email and cc you. Hope that's OK. > CGI.Br has much more resources and manpower than CSTD and IGF, who, with very poor secretarial support, have done such a job of receiving nominees names and forming committees rather well. Having been involved with the IGF as a MAG member and then on an occasional basis with the IGF secretariat, I'm not so sure. We are still waiting for the IGF Secretariat to respond about the MAG renewal -- if the Brazilians were as slow (with no disrespect to my friend Chengetai) then we might have the committees formed shortly after the meeting was held :-) Seriously, I don't know what resources CGI.br has at its disposal, but the addition of an international high-level meeting, political, at such short notice, on top of other ongoing tasks (they have a "day job") will be a very significant challenge. They have enough to do. Let's try to help them. (BTW, I have no contract with the IGF Secretariat now, and at present do not expect to work with them this year's IGF.) > And from what I know 1Net really does not exist in any particular shape or body yet.... It seems to be gaining shape right now. The steering committee is near complete, and they should be giving shape to the "platform" or whatever it will be. I don't expect the steering committee to act on major issues without consultation and wider agreement of stakeholders. The committee's charter's being drafted now, so we'll soon see, and be able to comment. > There is simply no logic here, other than that ICANN, with the 1Net front has been ramming its way into the Brazilian meeting organising space, and LOG has been giving way... Money, what I understand Fadi would basically be meeting LOG today about, may be a factor, and I simply do not like the role of money in public spaces shaping roles. But what is ICANN's reason? That s the question.... > > You want to make it more intriguing.... Though I dont have the time to keep repeating things which happened in plain sight, bec as they say you cannot wake up someone who isnt asleep... Lights are on but there's nobody home? Funny... > but , briefly > About the intrigue you see, I just don't see it that darkly. But as indicated in my last email, if I'm wrong and this proves to be the unrepresentative fix you're suggesting, then harm will have been done to the notion of the multi-stakeholder approach. So I hope I'm right. Adam > 1. At the IGF 1Net was launched as a 'movement', and rather aggressively... They were trying to take so much control of the Brazil meeting that Brazilian gov reps were visibly embarrassed, and even upset.... > > 2. Sometime in Dec, 1Net coordinator announced that they will appoint/ coordinate the non gov stakeholder reps to the Brazilian committee > > 3. A meeting of the Brazilian organisers on 27th Dec (?) told them, and everyone else, no you would not do it, we will handle it ourselves (there are mails to the BB list in this regard, which i reposted 2 days back) > > 4. Early Jan another meeting of LOG tells us, well, we have changed our mind, and it is 1Net who will organise non gov relationships with LOG (Carolina in a recent email has descried it as 1Net filtering everything to 1Net) > > 5. so many CS persons get together and decided in Bali that, no, CS wont mediate its relationship through 1Net, but deal with Brazilians directly, and gave 4 Liaisons that specific role... Slowly that resolve disappears and the leadership who was supposed to assert this decision of the 4 CS networks, seem to be itself getting dissolving into 1Net, and so when the LOG turn around took place, no one was complaining. > > 6 Discussions are rife that 1Net will remain a standing platform for non gov stakeholders, beyond Brazil meeting, and keep engaging as one with global IG spaces... Everything that has been announced from 1Net side has come true. such is it its power, so, keep watching.... > > 7 ........... > > 8 .............. > > Many other events making a rather intriguing chain... And you want us to just be complacent, and trust everyone... > > When the UN but moves the slightest in its bed, we are ready to develop all kind of projections... So many are here already projecting what they are going to do in 2015, and what is needed to stop them... And with ICANN (how much is it the US establishment?) we should simply trust and wait, and things will turn up well... Sure. > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 06:59 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. >> >> To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... >>> >>> This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. >>> >>> Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. >>> >>> What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on Adam >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ian, >>>>> >>>>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>>>> >>>>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>>>> >>>>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>>>> >>>>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>>>> >>>>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>>>> >>>>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>>>> >>>>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>>>> >>>>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>>>> >>>>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>>>> >>>>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 10 10:00:17 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:00:17 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: <65D53B74-84F8-42B4-84BF-738B51BEEC39@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> <65D53B74-84F8-42B4-84BF-738B51BEEC39@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > I would certainly not go into a conspiracy here. I would simply emphasize > the fact that at the time the enormous pressure on him was certainly not of > great help regarding his personal health. You are right to say that Postel > just passed away, like we will all do. His 'exit' is not about his death by > underlies the way he was taken off the Internet pre-historic governance > road. In the months before his passing away, the overall 'governance' went > through a complete reshuffle. As he resisted the move, Postel went through a > rather hard time, facing Magaziner's assignment to transform the by-then > governance of the Internet into something different, something that could be > given to the USG You seem to be working under the assumption that IANA wasn't working under a contract with the USG at the time. , which would officially give it back to a new entity > labeled ICANN. Had the USG to take into its hands, and anymore right to give > to a Californian non profit with no check and balance except from the > Department of Commerce? Since then ICANN has never proved strong enough to > become independent from its master. See the evolution from MoU to AoC/ATRT to Whatever comes out of 1net/Brazil. This wrong turn in digital history has > been more than documented but that many tend to ignore. So I feel I can stop > here on that. > > I do not see conspiracy here, but plain politics and power game. > > That sounds to me like having a fresh memory is very useful when we think of > building a new system of governance in the context of international data and > meta-data. As the concentration of power is highly asymmetrical, we can > obviously expected a strong resistance to changing the status quo. Very > common sense. Not true? We can expect resistance to change from a system that works remarkable well to ....??? -- 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 raul at lacnic.net Fri Jan 10 10:00:55 2014 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:00:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Adam: Wise words, as usual. Raul Enviado desde mi iPad El 10/01/2014, a las 11:29, Adam Peake escribió: > Hi Parminder, > > If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. > > To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: > >> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... >> >> This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. >> >> Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. >> >> What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >>> +1 on Adam >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>>> >>>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>>> >>>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>>> >>>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>>> >>>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>>> >>>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>>> >>>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>>> >>>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>>> >>>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>>> >>>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>>>> >>>>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>>>> >>>>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>>>> >>>>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>>>> >>>>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>>>> >>>>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Carolina Rossini >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>>>> To: parminder >>>>> Cc: >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>>>> >>>>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>>>> :-) >>>>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>>>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>>>> hugs >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>>> >>>>> Carolina >>>>> >>>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>>> >>>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>>> >>>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>>> >>>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>>> >>>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>>> >>>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>>> Open Technology Institute >>>>> New America Foundation >>>>> // >>>>> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Jan 10 10:06:00 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:06:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Daniel's proposal for refocusing IGC In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140110160600.1ec113bf@quill> Daniel Pimienta wrote: > I mentionned on purpose the expression "surveying". It is a simple > and often efficient way to have a virtual community (VC) get back to > focus. A short set of questions, the process of statistics from the > answers and some analysis of the results is quite often a good > solution to reduce confusion, take the pulse and help a VC re-focus > to the real stakes. You can also consider it as a tool to help > consensus reaching when it becomes harder. Sounds like a very good idea to me. (For when the new team of coordinators is in place.) 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 10 10:51:52 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:51:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] IT for Change as At Large References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332380@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, Parminders knowledge of ICANN is - I would say - limited and a little bit a fantasy world because he does not participate in the meetings and has only second hand knowledge. Here is a proposal for Parminder: Could you consider to join as IT for Change ICANN´s At Large Community? ALAC prepares now the second world summit of Internet Users for London in June 2014 (ATLAS II)? The first summit (ATLAS I) was in Mecico in 2009. This was a great meeting and ICANN accepted, inter alia, the recommendation to give the At Large/Civil Society Groups in ICANN a voting seat on the ICANN Board. It would be good if such an important voice as IT for Change would raise its voice in a constructive way in this community. It is simple to join. You just write an application to become recognized as an ALS and provide the needed documentation. Being part of it you will probably get another perspective which is closer to the real world. There are a lot of good people from civil society there. Best wishes 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Jan 10 11:21:17 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:51:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Following up on my message below, in the end, the LOC decided that today's meeting would only be open to the LOC. According to communication by Hartmut, this was to avoid unbalanced representation, as the technical community has not yet appointed its representatives (see the message below my email). In that sense, my request to Adiel to facilitate the participation of the liaisons in the meeting became irrelevant. However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering group members in that meeting, something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable with 1net being the conduit for their participation. Best regards, Anja Begin forwarded message: Dear All, Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering Committee already is in place, and to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we decided that the meeting tomorrow (Friday January 10th) will be only *a meeting of the Local Organizing Working Group (Members of CGI.br )*. I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next week and then we can start to work with high speed. All the best Hartmu On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a member of > the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the participation in > person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on 10 Jan. Joana and Laura > are the liaisons who had indicated they could make it in person. > > Will let you know as soon as there is a response. > > Best, > Anja > On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > >> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. >> >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : >> >> Hi Jean- Christophe, >> >> One correction to your excellent summary >> >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> >> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a >> different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja >> Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) >> >> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days >> ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical >> community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a >> longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil >> Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; >> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> >> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good >> reasons for the mess (not always but...). >> >> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand >> it now, its title might be: >> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* >> >> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my >> information to the listings)* >> >> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the >> purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are >> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious >> issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, >> and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release >> dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In >> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The >> last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. >> In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. >> >> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil >> lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level >> of concern? >> >> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >> >> *Who are the Organizers?* >> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* >> (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... >> >> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet >> Conference?* >> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 >> additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >> >> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* >> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "*Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee*". This committee is not per say Brazilian >> as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should >> be a *US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee*, or an *ICANN and BRAZIL >> Internet Steering Committee*. >> >> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he >> is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the >> meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It >> seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND >> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see >> below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". >> >> *Who are the Representatives for all IG >> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the >> multistakeholder story)?* >> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC >> (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a >> "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, >> too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a >> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when >> this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, >> no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) >> is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the >> current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it >> was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to >> endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF >> delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the >> multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for >> participation. >> >> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers >> will be able to share a feeling of participation. >> >> *Who are the other governments participating?* >> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low >> 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as >> most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through >> the I*. >> >> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI >> SC)?* >> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the >> umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America >> Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana >> and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) >> - ICANN representatives? >> - Others? >> ... >> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first >> BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting >> website) >> >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering >> committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, >> Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel >> but we haven't seen his answer yet. >> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in >> the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette >> Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already >> in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal >> feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed >> something here) >> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil >> society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member >> at the BI SC. >> >> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare >> the event under the BI SC overview?* >> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite >> clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement >> with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). >> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection >> committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected >> will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL >> and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. >> We don not know about other names. >> >> >> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting?* >> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering >> committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments >> representatives are expected. >> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the >> meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for >> the event. >> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include >> other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting >> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 >> civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 >> meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >> >> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill >> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all >> circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants >> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the >> mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not >> too demanding. >> >> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 >> committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> multistakeholder setting >> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report >> back as the process progresses >> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> discussions >> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of >> civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> >> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of >> information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute >> to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. >> >> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time >> on this. >> >> Thanks in advance >> JC >> >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> @jc_nothias >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> Dear folks, >> >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. >> Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL >> conversations with CGI. >> >> >> Carolina >> >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The >> point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering >> all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover >> (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting >> there if not already there. >> >> >> >> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >> >> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net >> discuss list: >> >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >> >> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps >> can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the >> LOC. >> >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> >> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to >> have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of >> committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering >> committee members: >> >> Rafik Dammak >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Anja Kovacs >> Vladimir Radunovik >> Joana Varon >> >> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >> >> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But >> there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. >> And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short >> notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. >> Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? >> >> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to >> be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good >> process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering >> to help. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable >> to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four >> prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, >> no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is >> *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were >> requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil >> meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep >> us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be >> invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case >> the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep >> CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened >> since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. >> Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a >> member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been >> officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with >> CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to >> speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked >> for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to >> any of our requests.... >> >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and >> seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role >> that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an >> explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >> >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel >> email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> >> -- >> >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Fri Jan 10 11:46:31 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:46:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> Message-ID: <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion raised on the nomination of Parminder. In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would die... Marie -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 12:06:37 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:36:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the organisation of the Brazilian meeting remains a topic of considerable confusion (including on the 1net email lists), I have requested that the 1net steering committee seeks clarification from the LOC on what its expectations vis-a-vis 1net are once the Committees are in place. If the LOC has no further expectations at that point, and if the 1net steering committee also sees no role for itself, the current tension will automatically defuse, as 1net would then automatically move into the background, at least where the organisational aspects of the meeting are concerned (it would hopefully still contribute to the substance!). The committee appointments should be known in about 5 days time. If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that time would be a good moment to more formally reassess our stance - through whatever process deemed most appropriate. Whatever happens, if at some point it is decided that working through the 1net SC is acceptable on some issues in the preparation for this event, I disagree that that means 1net will automatically become the default platform for all CS representation in the future, as some seem to fear. The exact shape that 1net will take is something that is still to be determined, and it is up to all of us to provide input into that - and up to us as 1net SC members from CS to make sure that you all remain informed of any relevant proposals etc. so that we can collectively frame timely responses as needed. FYI, the archives of the 1net SC mailing list are public, and can be accessed here: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/ Best, Anja On 10 January 2014 20:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder wrote: > > I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that > well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their > preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, > some clarification will be extremely helpful). > > I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly > arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. > > > Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has certainly been made > clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been made clear to > the respective lists, but evidently not. So let me restate my > understanding of it: > > > - The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting > representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the > Brazil meeting is a discrete event. > - Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated that the > 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint the Brazil committee > reps, and they were not selected in the expectation that do such a thing. > - Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is > handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise that Michael > Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, > or....) > - As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they took > *interim* roles in liaising both with the 1net group and the Brazil > organisers, but these interim appointments are superseded as more permanent > appointments are made - initially of the new 1net steering committee > representatives, and (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil > committees. > - The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the Brazil > committees go through the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because it > flew in the face of what we thought we had clearly told them about our > process. But Ian's response is that we will send our selections directly > to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee. > > > Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear > enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely > unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of > legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit > of a compromise. > > Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the > coordination group. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 11:51:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:21:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52D02514.70902@itforchange.net> >> Dear All, >> >> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering >> Committee already is in place, and >> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we >> decided that the meeting tomorrow >> (Friday January 10th) will be only_*a meeting of the Local Organizing >> Working Group (Members ofCGI.br )*_. >> >> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next >> week and then we can start to work with >> high speed. >> >> All the best >> >> Hartmut I am a bit unclear about Hartmut's email.... Why was 1Net's steering committee being earlier considered as 'the' manner of stakeholder participation in LOG meeting? (I think this may been considered as an interim measure, which was rightly decided now to be erroneous.) Is 1Net steering committee not there to mind 1Net's business, whatever it is? What business has it with LOG or the Brazilian meeting? Or, I can understand it another way... That they decided now to - rightly - just keep 1Net out and wait for the 2 or 3 (or 4) Brazilian Meeting Organising Committees to get formed and go through that formal and legitimate process. I welcome this decision and congratulate LOG for it. Thanks a lot.. parminder > > > > > > On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a > member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the > participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on > 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they > could make it in person. > > Will let you know as soon as there is a response. > > Best, > Anja > > On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal" > wrote: > > Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Hi Jean- Christophe, >> One correction to your excellent summary >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering >> Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; >> Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana >> Varon ) >> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up >> about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various >> constituencies but as the technical community reps have not >> been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term >> brief than the Brazil meeting. >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >> >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus - IGC >> ; >> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some >> good reasons for the mess (not always but...). >> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can >> understand it now, its title might be: >> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* >> * >> * >> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for >> editing my information to the listings)* >> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set >> for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br >> ), only minor informations are >> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference >> and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for >> the location of the venue, and its address. In the >> 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, >> 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In >> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with >> 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 >> hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you >> click to pop up an email. >> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new >> website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this >> website to the appropriate level of concern? >> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >> *Who are the Organizers?* >> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the >> other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, >> IETF, RIRs... >> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on >> Internet Conference?* >> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN >> and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* >> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the >> meeting is a "/Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/". This >> committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN >> representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a >> /US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee/, or an /ICANN and >> BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee/. >> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. >> Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN >> delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is >> also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this >> secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND >> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the >> committees (see below). We have no specific information about >> the "shared secretariat". >> *Who are the Representatives for all IG >> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember >> the multistakeholder story)?* >> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI >> SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many >> stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little >> time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a >> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, >> specially when this filter has no existence, no >> constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no >> proper information flow. What we know about this filter >> (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly >> constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US >> role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not >> endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a >> private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an >> IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare >> the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system >> of call for participation. >> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be >> allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of >> participation. >> *Who are the other governments participating?* >> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at >> a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will >> not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT >> 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. >> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee (BI SC)?* >> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) >> under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New >> America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio >> Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net >> steering committee or 1net steercom) >> - ICANN representatives? >> - Others? >> ... >> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of >> the first BI SC, and no official information is available >> online on the brmeeting website) >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net >> steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names >> of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his >> answer yet. >> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to >> participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee >> (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir >> Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With >> a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from >> them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed >> something here) >> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another >> civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison >> and a member at the BI SC. >> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed >> to prepare the event under the BI SC overview?* >> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing >> them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will >> finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL >> and ICANN). >> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc >> selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The >> final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the >> organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the >> names. >> We don not know about other names. >> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan >> 10 meeting?* >> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by >> 1net steering committee. Brazilian government >> representative(s). No other governments representatives are >> expected. >> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told >> that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote >> participation issue for the event. >> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI >> SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this >> meeting >> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to >> include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC >> be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of >> goodwill >> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and >> in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other >> participants >> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all >> the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. >> And therefore not too demanding. >> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to >> the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >> 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in >> a multistakeholder setting >> 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> report back as the process progresses >> 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in >> these discussions >> 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> of civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, >> complement of information, or new information be pushed >> forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about >> the process and help overall understanding. >> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks >> for your time on this. >> >> Thanks in advance >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on >>>>> January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional >>>>> entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is >>>> interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this >>>> arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with >>>> CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for >>>> the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >>>> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we >>>> are fast getting there if not already there. >>>> >>> >>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >>> >>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from >>> the 1Net discuss list: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>>> >>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net >>>>> steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, >>>>> awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>>> >>>>> - a. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his >>> request to have steering committee members attend. I am >>> beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but >>> believe we have selected five steering committee members: >>> >>> Rafik Dammak >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Anja Kovacs >>> Vladimir Radunovik >>> Joana Varon >>> >>> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >>> >>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in >>> person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the >>> committee at least has a list. And if some of the other >>> Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, >>> suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as >>> proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members >>> could make this request? >>> >>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when >>> meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always >>> mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we >>> have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is >>>> not acceptable to us? I request that list members give >>>> their response to this. >>>> >>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and >>>> four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) >>>> together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable >>>> to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people >>>> thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >>>> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS >>>> Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings >>>> related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite >>>> inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >>>> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>> >>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why >>>> did you not keep us posted about what was happening in >>>> Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all >>>> meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >>>> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such >>>> is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly >>>> said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about >>>> developments. However, whereas much has happened since that >>>> time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to >>>> us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since >>>> he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three >>>> of you? >>>> >>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that >>>> it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say >>>> 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to >>>> this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about >>>> what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) >>>> asked for some information about what was happening. But >>>> NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>> >>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public >>>> duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear >>>> abdication of the role that you all were given as CS >>>> reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this >>>> somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here >>>>> is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 11:57:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:27:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Following up on my message below, in the end, the LOC decided that > today's meeting would only be open to the LOC. According to > communication by Hartmut, this was to avoid unbalanced representation, > as the technical community has not yet appointed its representatives > (see the message below my email). > > In that sense, my request to Adiel to facilitate the participation of > the liaisons in the meeting became irrelevant. I dont see why Adiel is being appealed to for facilitating civil society participation in LOG meeting when a decision was taken at Bali that we wont use 1Net as our conduit to LOG.... I am happy Adiel responded as did below... > However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only > one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie > the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing > directly with the LOC, Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He > also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only > wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of > his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering > group members in that meeting, Now this is interesting... I know that all stakeholders will participate in organising committees as nominated through their respective processes... What is this about 1Net participating in LOG meeting. what is the basis for that... parminder > something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable > with 1net being the conduit for their participation. > > Best regards, > Anja > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Dear All, >> >> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering >> Committee already is in place, and >> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we >> decided that the meeting tomorrow >> (Friday January 10th) will be only_*a meeting of the Local Organizing >> Working Group (Members ofCGI.br )*_. >> >> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next >> week and then we can start to work with >> high speed. >> >> All the best >> >> Hartmu > > > > > > On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a > member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the > participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on > 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they > could make it in person. > > Will let you know as soon as there is a response. > > Best, > Anja > > On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal" > wrote: > > Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Hi Jean- Christophe, >> One correction to your excellent summary >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering >> Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; >> Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana >> Varon ) >> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up >> about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various >> constituencies but as the technical community reps have not >> been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term >> brief than the Brazil meeting. >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >> >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus - IGC >> ; >> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some >> good reasons for the mess (not always but...). >> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can >> understand it now, its title might be: >> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* >> * >> * >> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for >> editing my information to the listings)* >> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set >> for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br >> ), only minor informations are >> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference >> and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for >> the location of the venue, and its address. In the >> 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, >> 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In >> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with >> 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 >> hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you >> click to pop up an email. >> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new >> website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this >> website to the appropriate level of concern? >> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >> *Who are the Organizers?* >> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the >> other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, >> IETF, RIRs... >> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on >> Internet Conference?* >> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN >> and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* >> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the >> meeting is a "/Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/". This >> committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN >> representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a >> /US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee/, or an /ICANN and >> BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee/. >> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. >> Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN >> delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is >> also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this >> secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND >> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the >> committees (see below). We have no specific information about >> the "shared secretariat". >> *Who are the Representatives for all IG >> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember >> the multistakeholder story)?* >> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI >> SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many >> stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little >> time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a >> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, >> specially when this filter has no existence, no >> constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no >> proper information flow. What we know about this filter >> (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly >> constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US >> role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not >> endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a >> private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an >> IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare >> the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system >> of call for participation. >> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be >> allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of >> participation. >> *Who are the other governments participating?* >> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at >> a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will >> not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT >> 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. >> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee (BI SC)?* >> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) >> under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New >> America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio >> Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net >> steering committee or 1net steercom) >> - ICANN representatives? >> - Others? >> ... >> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of >> the first BI SC, and no official information is available >> online on the brmeeting website) >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net >> steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names >> of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his >> answer yet. >> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to >> participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee >> (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir >> Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With >> a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from >> them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed >> something here) >> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another >> civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison >> and a member at the BI SC. >> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed >> to prepare the event under the BI SC overview?* >> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing >> them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will >> finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL >> and ICANN). >> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc >> selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The >> final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the >> organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the >> names. >> We don not know about other names. >> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan >> 10 meeting?* >> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by >> 1net steering committee. Brazilian government >> representative(s). No other governments representatives are >> expected. >> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told >> that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote >> participation issue for the event. >> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI >> SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this >> meeting >> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to >> include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC >> be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of >> goodwill >> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and >> in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other >> participants >> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all >> the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. >> And therefore not too demanding. >> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to >> the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >> 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in >> a multistakeholder setting >> 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> report back as the process progresses >> 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in >> these discussions >> 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> of civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, >> complement of information, or new information be pushed >> forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about >> the process and help overall understanding. >> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks >> for your time on this. >> >> Thanks in advance >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on >>>>> January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional >>>>> entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is >>>> interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this >>>> arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with >>>> CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for >>>> the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >>>> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we >>>> are fast getting there if not already there. >>>> >>> >>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >>> >>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from >>> the 1Net discuss list: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>>> >>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net >>>>> steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, >>>>> awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>>> >>>>> - a. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his >>> request to have steering committee members attend. I am >>> beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but >>> believe we have selected five steering committee members: >>> >>> Rafik Dammak >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Anja Kovacs >>> Vladimir Radunovik >>> Joana Varon >>> >>> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >>> >>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in >>> person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the >>> committee at least has a list. And if some of the other >>> Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, >>> suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as >>> proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members >>> could make this request? >>> >>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when >>> meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always >>> mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we >>> have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is >>>> not acceptable to us? I request that list members give >>>> their response to this. >>>> >>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and >>>> four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) >>>> together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable >>>> to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people >>>> thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >>>> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS >>>> Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings >>>> related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite >>>> inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >>>> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>> >>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why >>>> did you not keep us posted about what was happening in >>>> Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all >>>> meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >>>> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such >>>> is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly >>>> said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about >>>> developments. However, whereas much has happened since that >>>> time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to >>>> us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since >>>> he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three >>>> of you? >>>> >>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that >>>> it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say >>>> 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to >>>> this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about >>>> what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) >>>> asked for some information about what was happening. But >>>> NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>> >>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public >>>> duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear >>>> abdication of the role that you all were given as CS >>>> reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this >>>> somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here >>>>> is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Jan 10 12:17:19 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:17:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> Message-ID: <798729857.28206.1389374239745.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m21> the same for me : +1 for Parminder ! I support warmly the nomination of Parminder, who is "The Voice" of CS organizations and the best advocate for ICT in DCs and more specially for Internet dissemination and governance in DCs. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 10/01/14 17:46 > De : "Marie GEORGES" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder > > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would die... > Marie > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 12:21:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:51:48 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52D02C2C.401@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 January 2014 10:36 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the organisation > of the Brazilian meeting remains a topic of considerable confusion > (including on the 1net email lists), I have requested that the 1net > steering committee seeks clarification from the LOC on what its > expectations vis-a-vis 1net are once the Committees are in place. If > the LOC has no further expectations at that point, and if the 1net > steering committee also sees no role for itself, the current tension > will automatically defuse, as 1net would then automatically move into > the background, at least where the organisational aspects of the > meeting are concerned (it would hopefully still contribute to the > substance!). The committee appointments should be known in about 5 > days time. > > If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that time would be > a good moment to more formally reassess our stance - through whatever > process deemed most appropriate. Anja I am sure you have followed the facts of the case whereby it has not been what LOG expected of 1Net, but what 1Net, or whoever drives 1Net, has consistently and insistently tried to extract from LOG... you know that 1Net begun even in Bali to assume roles about the Brazil meeting which made Brazilians extremely uncomfortable, and that then in Dec Adiel made the unilateral declaration that 1Net will be the conduit to Brazil organising committees, whereby later on 27th dec LOG pushed 1Net back and announced more or less that Adiel's announcement was wrong and unauthorised and that LOG will directly deal with different stakeholder processes... whatever happened between that meeting and the latest LOG meeting in the first week of Jan, but then 1Net was again the one conduit... Why do you think we should ignore all this publicly known stuff and innocently assume that it is LOG which is pressuring poor 1Net into different roles. This is pretty strange to me... parminder > > Whatever happens, if at some point it is decided that working through > the 1net SC is acceptable on some issues in the preparation for this > event, I disagree that that means 1net will automatically become the > default platform for all CS representation in the future, as some seem > to fear. The exact shape that 1net will take is something that is > still to be determined, and it is up to all of us to provide input > into that - and up to us as 1net SC members from CS to make sure that > you all remain informed of any relevant proposals etc. so that we can > collectively frame timely responses as needed. > > FYI, the archives of the 1net SC mailing list are public, and can be > accessed here: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/ > > Best, > Anja > > > > > > On 10 January 2014 20:09, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder > wrote: > >> I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell >> us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But >> what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there >> is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful). >> >> I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and >> clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. > > Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has certainly been > made clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been > made clear to the respective lists, but evidently not. So let me > restate my understanding of it: > > * The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting > representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue > whereas the Brazil meeting is a discrete event. > * Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated > that the 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint > the Brazil committee reps, and they were not selected in the > expectation that do such a thing. > * Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled > (or is handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise > that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy > about 1net, or Best Bits, or....) > * As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they > took /interim/ roles in liaising both with the 1net group and > the Brazil organisers, but these interim appointments are > superseded as more permanent appointments are made - initially > of the new 1net steering committee representatives, and > (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil committees. > * The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the > Brazil committees go through the 1net committee initially > flummoxed us because it flew in the face of what we thought we > had clearly told them about our process. But Ian's response > is that we will send our selections directly to the LOG, and > also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee. > > > Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't > clear enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is > likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the > plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's > intended as a bit of a compromise. > > Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the > coordination group. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Jan 10 13:36:07 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:36:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <201401100553.s0A5r3F6028993@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <201401100553.s0A5r3F6028993@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <52D03D97.4070202@acm.org> Hi, I was wondering could we get this done for this list. People occasionally request that someone be blocked from the list because they accuse that someone of being a troll and of sending too much email. While I admit am not given to thinking that way about people, except perhaps myself, I think that at the very least we should have metrics before actually acting on such accusations. thanks avri Jeremy: I did not send this only to you or or your admins list even though the question could be seen as a purely technical one, because it may not be just a technical decision. I have seen occasions on other lists when this was first done, some people felt uneasy about being tracked that way. My thought is that with a public archive, whoever is interested is already doing the tracking, we just don't know it, or see it, yet. Tbanks for all you do to keep this caucus functioning. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Weekly posting summary for ietf at ietf.org Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:53:03 -0500 From: Thomas Narten To: ietf at ietf.org Total of 228 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 10 00:53:02 EST 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 7.02% | 16 | 12.46% | 237981 | hallam at gmail.com 4.82% | 11 | 5.16% | 98475 | l.wood at surrey.ac.uk 4.82% | 11 | 4.00% | 76450 | dhc at dcrocker.net 3.95% | 9 | 3.98% | 75957 | stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie 4.39% | 10 | 3.50% | 66856 | paf at frobbit.se 3.95% | 9 | 3.58% | 68329 | brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com 3.51% | 8 | 3.09% | 58963 | scott.brim at gmail.com 3.51% | 8 | 2.69% | 51313 | jari.arkko at piuha.net 2.63% | 6 | 2.52% | 48038 | drc at virtualized.org 2.63% | 6 | 2.19% | 41742 | adrian at olddog.co.uk 2.19% | 5 | 2.19% | 41747 | lear at cisco.com 2.19% | 5 | 2.15% | 41119 | john-ietf at jck.com 1.32% | 3 | 2.76% | 52613 | mariainesrobles at googlemail.com 2.19% | 5 | 1.71% | 32699 | johnl at taugh.com 1.75% | 4 | 1.68% | 31995 | abdussalambaryun at gmail.com 1.75% | 4 | 1.53% | 29204 | sm+ietf at elandsys.com 0.88% | 2 | 2.36% | 45134 | bclaise at cisco.com 1.75% | 4 | 1.49% | 28371 | stbryant at cisco.com 1.75% | 4 | 1.41% | 26858 | morrowc.lists at gmail.com 1.75% | 4 | 1.31% | 25065 | ajs at anvilwalrusden.com 1.75% | 4 | 1.29% | 24621 | derhoermi at gmx.net 1.75% | 4 | 1.27% | 24343 | randy at psg.com 1.32% | 3 | 1.68% | 32037 | turners at ieca.com 1.32% | 3 | 1.65% | 31538 | michael.scharf at alcatel-lucent.com 0.88% | 2 | 2.04% | 38878 | andy at yumaworks.com 1.32% | 3 | 1.37% | 26189 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.32% | 3 | 1.28% | 24424 | sm at resistor.net 1.32% | 3 | 1.15% | 22005 | gih at apnic.net 1.32% | 3 | 1.13% | 21503 | agmalis at gmail.com 1.32% | 3 | 1.07% | 20420 | jcurran at istaff.org 1.32% | 3 | 1.05% | 20002 | ted.lemon at nominum.com 1.32% | 3 | 1.01% | 19357 | melinda.shore at gmail.com 1.32% | 3 | 0.96% | 18387 | kent at bbn.com 1.32% | 3 | 0.86% | 16504 | jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu 0.88% | 2 | 0.80% | 15327 | ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com 0.88% | 2 | 0.73% | 13861 | erosen at cisco.com 0.88% | 2 | 0.69% | 13158 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu 0.88% | 2 | 0.67% | 12712 | loa at pi.nu 0.88% | 2 | 0.67% | 12707 | bmanning at isi.edu 0.88% | 2 | 0.66% | 12553 | housley at vigilsec.com 0.88% | 2 | 0.63% | 12049 | tglassey at earthlink.net 0.88% | 2 | 0.57% | 10849 | chair at ietf.org 0.88% | 2 | 0.57% | 10801 | simon at josefsson.org 0.44% | 1 | 0.70% | 13393 | stewe at stewe.org 0.44% | 1 | 0.69% | 13193 | daedulus at btconnect.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.68% | 12931 | ron.even.tlv at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.64% | 12238 | ggm at algebras.org 0.44% | 1 | 0.63% | 12054 | david.black at emc.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.58% | 11035 | superuser at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.56% | 10622 | suzworldwide at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.53% | 10107 | avri at ella.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.52% | 9925 | jmh at joelhalpern.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.51% | 9807 | hsantos at isdg.net 0.44% | 1 | 0.51% | 9774 | wzhang at cisco.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.46% | 8827 | ogud at ogud.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.45% | 8652 | fred at cisco.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.42% | 7983 | j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de 0.44% | 1 | 0.41% | 7845 | dave at cridland.net 0.44% | 1 | 0.41% | 7806 | joelja at bogus.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.41% | 7790 | paul.hoffman at vpnc.org 0.44% | 1 | 0.41% | 7776 | tbray at textuality.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.39% | 7380 | lberger at labn.net 0.44% | 1 | 0.38% | 7252 | d3e3e3 at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.36% | 6928 | tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk 0.44% | 1 | 0.36% | 6895 | sm at +ietfelandsys.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.36% | 6881 | andrew.hutton at unify.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.35% | 6711 | huubatwork at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.35% | 6659 | kre at munnari.oz.au 0.44% | 1 | 0.34% | 6450 | mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca 0.44% | 1 | 0.33% | 6248 | farinacci at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.32% | 6187 | lars at netapp.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.30% | 5819 | peter at bsdly.net 0.44% | 1 | 0.30% | 5639 | marka at isc.org 0.44% | 1 | 0.29% | 5574 | garbakora at gmail.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.28% | 5341 | worley at ariadne.com 0.44% | 1 | 0.24% | 4621 | ahmedbakhat at pta.gov.pk --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 228 |100.00% | 1909477 | Total -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From adiel at afrinic.net Fri Jan 10 13:37:41 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:37:41 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52D02C2C.401@itforchange.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> <52D02C2C.401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <16809266-5C17-42D4-9827-81726946CA45@afrinic.net> Hello Parminder, I have been reading all your messages and fuse related to /1net role etc. These are legitimate and it is your right to express them. However I caught something in this message which I need you to be more clear about: On 2014-01-10, at 21:21 PM, parminder wrote: > On Friday 10 January 2014 10:36 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the organisation of the Brazilian meeting remains a topic of considerable confusion (including on the 1net email lists), I have requested that the 1net steering committee seeks clarification from the LOC on what its expectations vis-a-vis 1net are once the Committees are in place. If the LOC has no further expectations at that point, and if the 1net steering committee also sees no role for itself, the current tension will automatically defuse, as 1net would then automatically move into the background, at least where the organisational aspects of the meeting are concerned (it would hopefully still contribute to the substance!). The committee appointments should be known in about 5 days time. >> >> If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that time would be a good moment to more formally reassess our stance - through whatever process deemed most appropriate. > > Anja > > I am sure you have followed the facts of the case whereby it has not been what LOG expected of 1Net, but what 1Net, or whoever drives 1Net, has consistently and insistently tried to extract from LOG… Can you instantiate your affirmation above? Are you member of the LOG? > you know that 1Net begun even in Bali to assume roles about the Brazil meeting which made Brazilians extremely uncomfortable, and that then in Dec Adiel made the unilateral declaration that 1Net will be the conduit to Brazil organising committees, Really? Where and when did I make such unilateral decision? > whereby later on 27th dec LOG pushed 1Net back and announced more or less that Adiel's announcement was wrong and unauthorised and that LOG will directly deal with different stakeholder processes… Really? Can you instantiate your statement here again?? > whatever happened between that meeting and the latest LOG meeting in the first week of Jan, but then 1Net was again the one conduit… > Why do you think we should ignore all this publicly known stuff and innocently assume that it is LOG which is pressuring poor 1Net into different roles. This is pretty strange to me… … so base on that you just deduct that it is /1net which is pushing? - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 10 14:46:40 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:46:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] an alternate Internet proposal from Syria and Saudi.....just leaked Message-ID: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/WG-WSIS-15-12.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu Fri Jan 10 14:55:11 2014 From: dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:55:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> Message-ID: <52D0501F.6090203@ies-france.eu> +1 for Parminder @+, Dominique Le 10/01/14 17:46, Marie GEORGES a écrit : > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would die... > Marie -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 15:02:43 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:02:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <52D0501F.6090203@ies-france.eu> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> <52D0501F.6090203@ies-france.eu> Message-ID: I never really quite understood whether the expressions of support here are supposed to count like a sort of vote (which I guess not) or to factor in, in some way (and which way then?), in the evaluation of the selection committee. Nevertheless, I wish to express my support (+1) to Parminder as the most progressive voice in this caucus of civil society. mawaki On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Dominique Lacroix < dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu> wrote: > +1 for Parminder > > @+, Dominique > > Le 10/01/14 17:46, Marie GEORGES a écrit : > > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good > connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion > raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and > solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before > internet would die... > > Marie > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.massit at orange.fr Fri Jan 10 15:49:50 2014 From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?fran=E7oise?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:49:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> <52D0501F.6090203@ies-france.eu> Message-ID: +1 FMF Le 10 janv. 14 à 21:02, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > I never really quite understood whether the expressions of support > here are supposed to count like a sort of vote (which I guess not) > or to factor in, in some way (and which way then?), in the > evaluation of the selection committee. > > Nevertheless, I wish to express my support (+1) to Parminder as the > most progressive voice in this caucus of civil society. > > mawaki > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Dominique Lacroix > wrote: > +1 for Parminder > > @+, Dominique > > Le 10/01/14 17:46, Marie GEORGES a écrit : > > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not > have good connection all these last days, so I have read only now > the all discussion raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and > solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion > here...before internet would die... > > Marie > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t Françoise Massit-Folléa f.massit at orange.fr Mob. 06 74 51 67 65 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 16:17:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 04:17:46 +0700 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> <52D0501F.6090203@ies-france.eu> Message-ID: <049601cf0e49$6afada60$40f08f20$@gmail.com> Mawaki, maybe it’s a cultural thing When I was in primary school one of the major fun-time events was counting the number of Valentine cards promising eternal love/loyalty (that sort of thing) that each individual received prior to Valentine’s day the 8 year old who received the most Valentines was clearly the most popular and their shining face was the one that got to strut around the playground for the next few weeks (and although not officially, was the one most frequently recognized by the teacher when it came to choosing the class monitors as she was equally influenced by these infantile games M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 3:03 AM To: Internet Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder I never really quite understood whether the expressions of support here are supposed to count like a sort of vote (which I guess not) or to factor in, in some way (and which way then?), in the evaluation of the selection committee. Nevertheless, I wish to express my support (+1) to Parminder as the most progressive voice in this caucus of civil society. mawaki On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: +1 for Parminder @+, Dominique Le 10/01/14 17:46, Marie GEORGES a écrit : > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would die... > Marie ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 17:46:34 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:46:34 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Meeting_in_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> Hmmm From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 9:40 PM To: parminder Cc: William Drake; Joana Varon; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net [MG>] snip Well lack of transparency, lack of processes for legitimate accountability, self and insider dealing, self-interested processes of exclusion, delegitimizing and marginalizing of critical or alternative perspectives, i.e. an overall illegitimacy of process and outcome are what they are and so far no one has either disputed or responded to my calling various of the self-appointed “Coordinators, Steering committee members, Facilitators etc.etc.” out on these “bad behaviours” * Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, or....) [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would very much like to see the Brazil process succeed I think the Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing how outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input processes such as these. M Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit of a compromise. Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the coordination group. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jan 10 20:47:18 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:17:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] an alternate Internet proposal from Syria and Saudi.....just leaked In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It reminds me of that old story about a recipe for lion pie that starts off with "first, catch a lion" In a practical implementation, for want of as the as yet unnamed better and newer technologies that this proposal blithely assumes will magically turn up to suit their needs, an "alternate internet" with nationalized governance and strict controls is more than likely to take the form of individual country's walled gardens, a model which the Saudis, Chinese etc are going to be very familiar and comfortable with. Of course they could just resurrect x.400 for messaging and x.25 for packet switching. That would make several ITU-T people very happy, at the very least. --srs (iPad) > On 11-Jan-2014, at 1:16, McTim wrote: > > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/WG-WSIS-15-12.pdf > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 00:00:42 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 03:00:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations In-Reply-To: <97042104-7ED5-4E4A-9DB3-E67C74AEF0F5@unog.ch> References: <97042104-7ED5-4E4A-9DB3-E67C74AEF0F5@unog.ch> Message-ID: Dear All, FYI, from Chengetai: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: 2014/1/10 Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations To: MAG List IGF "Dear All, Thank you for your reposes. The Secretariat confirms that the dates for the MAG meeting and Open Consultations will be *19-20 February* further details will be put up on the IGF website. The renewed MAG will be announced by the first half of next week". Best Regards, Fatima Cambronero -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jan 11 00:14:21 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:14:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] more developments re Brazil Message-ID: http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 11 00:19:02 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:49:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 From: parminder To: discuss at 1net.org On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: > 1net Participants - > > There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil meeting - > http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html from the announcement. "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet should go... parminder > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 00:38:50 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:38:50 +1300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations In-Reply-To: References: <97042104-7ED5-4E4A-9DB3-E67C74AEF0F5@unog.ch> Message-ID: <7E5822D5-9000-4446-979C-6CC9E948FEC3@gmail.com> Many thanks Fatima. Sent from my iPad > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote: > > > Dear All, > > FYI, from Chengetai: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2014/1/10 > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations > To: MAG List IGF > > > "Dear All, > > Thank you for your reposes. > > The Secretariat confirms that the dates for the MAG meeting and Open Consultations will be 19-20 February further details will be put up on the IGF website. > > The renewed MAG will be announced by the first half of next week". > > Best Regards, > Fatima Cambronero > > > -- > Fatima Cambronero > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ > > Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jan 11 02:12:35 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:12:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <94953200-7477-483F-8F8F-0D7302DC3BF5@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Some more developments - > > http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html > > Thanks Ian. Back to the general subject of this thread, the key part of the announcement: "The official website for the meeting will be launched on January 27th 2014. The website will enable the global community to provide contributions for the substantive agenda of the meeting, which consists of the following two specific topics: Internet governance principles; Roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. The roadmap should address the desirable properties for globally effective, legitimate and evolving governance frameworks. The roadmap should also encompass a path to evolve and globalize the current institutions and mechanisms, as well as address emerging needs." Bestbits workstreams are already active on the first, "Internet governance principles". I think the "roadmap" is one of the topics of the high level panel ICANN initiated, and there's additional work to start on governance frameworks. Shall we? Adam > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:48 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Carolina Rossini ; parminder ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > Hi Ian, > > You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. > > However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. > > First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. > > If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: > > 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) > > 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? > > 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. > > 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. > > > Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. > > If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. > > (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) > > Adam > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >> >> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >> >> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >> >> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >> >> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >> >> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >> >> >> >> >> From: Carolina Rossini >> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> >> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >> :-) >> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >> hugs >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >> >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sat Jan 11 02:43:37 2014 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 08:43:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] an alternate Internet proposal from Syria and Saudi.....just leaked In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: McTim et al, This has not "just leaked", it's a proposal from June 2009. Clearly, it has not gone much farther than that. Peter H. Hellmonds McTim wrote: > > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/WG-WSIS-15-12.pdf > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 05:10:33 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:10:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations In-Reply-To: References: <97042104-7ED5-4E4A-9DB3-E67C74AEF0F5@unog.ch> Message-ID: Hi Fatmata, thanks for sharing this information 2014/1/11 Fatima Cambronero > > Dear All, > > FYI, from Chengetai: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2014/1/10 > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] February Consultations > To: MAG List IGF > > > "Dear All, > > Thank you for your reposes. > > The Secretariat confirms that the dates for the MAG meeting and Open > Consultations will be *19-20 February* further details will be put up on > the IGF website. > > The renewed MAG will be announced by the first half of next week". > > Best Regards, > Fatima Cambronero > > > -- > *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 > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 11 06:00:45 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would > very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the > Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from > such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing how > outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input > processes such as these. In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable. If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a failure before it has even started. But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!! I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which various committees are populated are significant only if those shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's output document not having worthwhile content. I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others have made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it is simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection processes. Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the substantive discourse”? I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document. Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching IGC consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach IGC consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a sign-on statement. 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 06:58:17 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:58:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us both :-) Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist on dealing directly with the LOC, rather than through 1Net SC as the LOC has asked? And resend the letter from them? Could the folks speaking on their behalf also describe the mechanisms by which these positions were adopted, i.e. was there inclusive deliberation and decision on their respective listservs with their members (which Parminder rightfully called for yesterday), or is it still based on their reactions two months ago to the rather ill-advised way a couple TC people described 1Net’s goals at that Wednesday meeting in Bali? To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. Let’s please just be clear who’s speaking on who’s behalf. For ex, on the 1Net SC, I speak for GigaNet, which had a discussion and picked people. I do not claim to speak for “academia." > >> he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering group members in that meeting, > > Now this is interesting... I know that all stakeholders will participate in organising committees as nominated through their respective processes... What is this about 1Net participating in LOG meeting. what is the basis for that... I don’t want to put words into the mouths of either Adiel or Hartmut, but my understanding was that original hope was that all four SGs would put people on the 1net SC who have a mandate to act on their behalf and a commitment to work together with counterparts, and that thus to have some SC reps participate at least virtually in the meeting yesterday would have been a way for the LOG to bring stakeholders into an initial conversation. But as it happens, the 1Net SC is incomplete because the TC has not seated its reps yet, and only business has identified its reps to the two conference committees, so a substantive meeting to start deciding things became a non-starter. Hence the decision to focus on logistics. Now this may set some teeth on edge, but it should be known: the meeting wasn’t just LOG. Fadi was there, I believe with Nick Tomasso, who manages ICANN conference logistics. ICANN does have administrative machinery for holding conferences and it is a co-initiator of the event, so if the LOG wants its assistance with anything logistical I don’t see why it should say no. Accordingly, Nick is co-chairing the Logistics and Organizational Committee with Hartmut. Best, Bill > > parminder > >> something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable with 1net being the conduit for their participation. >> >> Best regards, >> Anja >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering Committee already is in place, and >>> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we decided that the meeting tomorrow >>> (Friday January 10th) will be only a meeting of the Local Organizing Working Group (Members of CGI.br). >>> >>> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next week and then we can start to work with >>> high speed. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Hartmu >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they could make it in person. >> >> Will let you know as soon as there is a response. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. >> >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : >> >>> Hi Jean- Christophe, >>> >>> One correction to your excellent summary >>> >>> Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) >>> >>> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) >>> >>> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >>> To: Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >>> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>> >>> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). >>> >>> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: >>> ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG >>> >>> So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) >>> >>> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. >>> >>> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? >>> >>> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >>> >>> Who are the Organizers? >>> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... >>> >>> Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? >>> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >>> >>> Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? >>> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. >>> >>> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". >>> >>> Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? >>> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >>> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. >>> >>> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. >>> >>> Who are the other governments participating? >>> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. >>> >>> Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? >>> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >>> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >>> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >>> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) >>> - ICANN representatives? >>> - Others? >>> ... >>> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) >>> >>> Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) >>> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. >>> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) >>> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >>> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. >>> >>> Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? >>> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). >>> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >>> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. >>> We don not know about other names. >>> >>> >>> Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? >>> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. >>> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. >>> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting >>> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >>> >>> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill >>> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >>> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants >>> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. >>> >>> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) >>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting >>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses >>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions >>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues >>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>> >>> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. >>> >>> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> JC >>> >>> >>> __________________________ >>> >>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>> Editor in Chief >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>> @jc_nothias >>> >>> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>>> Dear folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>> >>>>> Carolina >>>>> >>>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >>>> >>>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>>>> >>>>>> - a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: >>>> >>>> Rafik Dammak >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Anja Kovacs >>>> Vladimir Radunovik >>>> Joana Varon >>>> >>>> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >>>> >>>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? >>>> >>>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>>> >>>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>>> >>>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>>> >>>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>>> >>>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 *********************************************** 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 11 08:10:03 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 14:10:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> William Drake wrote: > On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > >> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an > >> LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. > >> As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have > >> insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate > > our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > > For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in > agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us > both :-) > > Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist > on dealing directly with the LOC The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC has not formally endorsed it. The two people who were at the time the co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, in meetings which were announced on the IGC list and in which many IGC members participated. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 09:47:45 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 09:47:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] an alternate Internet proposal from Syria and Saudi.....just leaked In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Peter, Despite it being from 09, it has never been made public before (to my knowledge). wcitleaks just got it, hence the term "leaked". rgds, McTim On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > McTim et al, > > This has not "just leaked", it's a proposal from June 2009. Clearly, it has not gone much farther than that. > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > > McTim wrote: >> >> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/WG-WSIS-15-12.pdf >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 17:58:36 2014 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:58:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> Message-ID: Dear Marie, Happy New Year! Can you, kindly please, tell us exactly where in the middle of Africa you were? As an African, I have to say I just would not let a stereotypic statement like yours get by like that. So please elaborate. Best wishes for better connectivity wherever your travels take you! Katim On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good > connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion > raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions > to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would > die... > Marie > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jan 11 20:41:40 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 02:41:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> Message-ID: <8F0AD34E-88EC-450C-BEB3-5C0BDBFFF060@noos.fr> Sorry Katim, SO Sorry...there was no stereotype in my thought . It happened only for a few days for having been in specific places just during the online discussion ("all these last days"). I could have just said, if we have been last summer as I experimented it " I was in the middle of south of France in places where 20 miles around my smartphone was of no use" , or if early november " I was in South Korea, beginning of november in Seoul, where my smartphone did not work (no connection of my operator with a local one) Sorry for not telling you exactly where exactly is was in africa, as it is a matter of privacy. But be sure my local and native friends who experimented it at the same time reported it already to their authorities Good to be vigilant to the connectivity on Africa, all the best to you. Marie Le 11 janv. 2014 à 23:58, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > Dear Marie, > > Happy New Year! > > Can you, kindly please, tell us exactly where in the middle of Africa you were? As an African, I have to say I just would not let a stereotypic statement like yours get by like that. So please elaborate. > > Best wishes for better connectivity wherever your travels take you! > > Katim > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion raised on the nomination of Parminder. > > In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished > > All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would die... > Marie > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 11 20:59:40 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:59:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <94953200-7477-483F-8F8F-0D7302DC3BF5@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <94953200-7477-483F-8F8F-0D7302DC3BF5@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <0A092C77-375B-4E7C-80EF-106A0ABB8B54@ciroap.org> On 11 Jan 2014, at 3:12 pm, Adam Peake wrote: > Bestbits workstreams are already active on the first, "Internet governance principles". I think the "roadmap" is one of the topics of the high level panel ICANN initiated, and there's additional work to start on governance frameworks. Shall we? Governance frameworks is also already underway through Best Bits; Andrew Puddephatt has been compiling contributions and will be posting the results for further discussion any day now (I've seen the draft). I don't think he's on this list, but we can summarise and repost here. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 21:28:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:28:09 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell Message-ID: <0a7c01cf0f3d$f4e761e0$deb625a0$@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dewayne Hendricks Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 Subject: Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell To: Dave Farber We are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell Try as I might, I can't shake the feeling that 2014 is the year we lose the Web. The W3C push for DRM in all browsers is going to ensure that all interfaces built in HTML5 (which will be pretty much everything) will be opaque to users, and it will be illegal to report on security flaws in them (because reporting a security flaw in DRM exposes you to risk of prosecution for making a circumvention device), so they will be riddled with holes that creeps, RATters, spooks, authoritarians and crooks will be able to use to take over your computer and fuck you in every possible way. Link to the full article: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 11 23:22:25 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:52:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell Message-ID: A bit of a slippery slope don't you think? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 7:58 AM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dewayne Hendricks Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 Subject: Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell To: Dave Farber We are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell Try as I might, I can't shake the feeling that 2014 is the year we lose the Web. The W3C push for DRM in all browsers is going to ensure that all interfaces built in HTML5 (which will be pretty much everything) will be opaque to users, and it will be illegal to report on security flaws in them (because reporting a security flaw in DRM exposes you to risk of prosecution for making a circumvention device), so they will be riddled with holes that creeps, RATters, spooks, authoritarians and crooks will be able to use to take over your computer and fuck you in every possible way. Link to the full article: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jan 12 05:31:07 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:31:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > William Drake wrote: > >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >>> On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>>> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an >>>> LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. >>>> As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have >>>> insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, >>> >>> Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate >>> our participation when we expressly decided against it.. >> >> For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in >> agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us >> both :-) >> >> Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist >> on dealing directly with the LOC > > The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online > at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: > > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) > IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the > Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) Thanks > > In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might > be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the > signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC > has not formally endorsed it. Thank you for clarifying this. > The two people who were at the time the > co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter > certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met > in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >> So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. > Correct ... >> >> So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. > Correct ... If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 05:42:27 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:42:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: <8F0AD34E-88EC-450C-BEB3-5C0BDBFFF060@noos.fr> References: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> <5B86C35E-E0E4-4912-95C5-0AA2BF8BA168@hserus.net> <48EC5784-55F9-4DEF-A698-6FB65EF971D7@virtualized.org> <52CDFD93.6090807@acm.org> <52CE2FF5.4030904@ciroap.org> <072101cf0d28$b73d6220$25b82660$@gmail.com> <333DD8DE-DB61-4EF7-B6BB-C946BE10148C@hserus.net> <62A61644-D81B-4E1C-B165-84D4E8477291@gmail.com> <52CEC664.7070302@afilias.info> <52CECCFF.2030707@ITforChange.net> <5F905821-244B-47E4-8362-3AF8B1DA2636@hserus.net> <7343A042-EC70-4054-89A2-D4DB2220B5B4@noos.fr> <8F0AD34E-88EC-450C-BEB3-5C0BDBFFF060@noos.fr> Message-ID: +1 to both of you (for the Q & the A.) Indeed those things happen, and they may happen anywhere. mawaki On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Sorry Katim, > > SO Sorry...there was no stereotype in my thought . It happened only for a > few days for having been in specific places just during the online > discussion ("all these last days"). > > I could have just said, if we have been last summer as I experimented it > " I was in the middle of south of France in places where 20 miles > around my smartphone was of no use" , or if early november " I was in > South Korea, beginning of november in Seoul, where my smartphone did not > work (no connection of my operator with a local one) > > Sorry for not telling you exactly where exactly is was in africa, as it > is a matter of privacy. But be sure my local and native friends who > experimented it at the same time reported it already to their authorities > > Good to be vigilant to the connectivity on Africa, all the best to you. > Marie > > Le 11 janv. 2014 à 23:58, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > > Dear Marie, > > Happy New Year! > > Can you, kindly please, tell us exactly where in the middle of Africa you > were? As an African, I have to say I just would not let a stereotypic > statement like yours get by like that. So please elaborate. > > Best wishes for better connectivity wherever your travels take you! > > Katim > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >> SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good >> connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion >> raised on the nomination of Parminder. >> >> In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished >> >> All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and solutions >> to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before internet would >> die... >> Marie >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 06:02:51 2014 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:02:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: In the middle of Africa Message-ID: Hi Marie, Thanks so much for your e-mail, and for clearing the air. Have a GREAT New Year, and safe travels! Katim On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > +1 to both of you (for the Q & the A.) > Indeed those things happen, and they may happen anywhere. > > mawaki > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >> Sorry Katim, >> >> SO Sorry...there was no stereotype in my thought . It happened only for a >> few days for having been in specific places just during the online >> discussion ("all these last days"). >> >> I could have just said, if we have been last summer as I experimented it >> " I was in the middle of south of France in places where 20 miles >> around my smartphone was of no use" , or if early november " I was in >> South Korea, beginning of november in Seoul, where my smartphone did not >> work (no connection of my operator with a local one) >> >> Sorry for not telling you exactly where exactly is was in africa, as it >> is a matter of privacy. But be sure my local and native friends who >> experimented it at the same time reported it already to their authorities >> >> Good to be vigilant to the connectivity on Africa, all the best to you. >> Marie >> >> Le 11 janv. 2014 à 23:58, Katim S. Touray a écrit : >> >> Dear Marie, >> >> Happy New Year! >> >> Can you, kindly please, tell us exactly where in the middle of Africa you >> were? As an African, I have to say I just would not let a stereotypic >> statement like yours get by like that. So please elaborate. >> >> Best wishes for better connectivity wherever your travels take you! >> >> Katim >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: >> >>> SOrry, I was in the middle of Africa in places where I did not have good >>> connection all these last days, so I have read only now the all discussion >>> raised on the nomination of Parminder. >>> >>> In any case I say +1 for Parnimder, if the vote is not finished >>> >>> All the best to you..but I would prefer the real challenges and >>> solutions to be promoted would be matters of discussion here...before >>> internet would die... >>> Marie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 06:28:17 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:28:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does anyone know about the actual status with HTML5 in relation to the DRM issue? A while ago I saw inputs/comments/analyses of the issues by a number of organizations (eg, EFF, etc... if my memory is correct.) Have some of these been taking into account? Has anything improved since in terms of the "next generation" browser design? This can be such a burden on the user! Not to mention the limitations to autonomy and privacy. A little more than a decade ago, I had a laptop and a CD-Rom both purchased in Paris. Then while in Maputo, I couldn't use the CD (which, mind you, was not even for entertainment but clearly something related to work) when I was randomly prompted to enter some code which I didn't have because it was only inside the CD box/ outer jacket left back in Paris. From my recollection, the problem was at least in part prompted by the fact that I was trying to access my materials from a country that was not listed among the geographic areas for which the standards for the CD/DVD reader were designed (although it could technically work, since both laptop and CD are the same whether used in France or in Mozambique or anywhere else for that matter... Because of my geolocation data at the time, I was just being suspected with an attempt to usurp intellectual property.) Some of those practices felt/feel like we are supposed to live, work and die in only one place, presumably the one where we once were born, while in same time we've been celebrating the ability of the internet to extend our boundaries of self and to augment our reality in a global and ubiquitous way. While I realize the experience above did not involve any browser per se, data was still being transmitted over the Internet for DRM purposes. Have we been smarter handling this since then? Is the way DRM issues are being handled with this HTML5 proving any more smarter? Mawaki ----- Reply message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell > Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 7:58 AM > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dewayne Hendricks > Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 > Subject: Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell > To: Dave Farber > > > > We are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell > > > > Try as I might, I can't shake the feeling that 2014 is the year we lose the > Web. The W3C push for DRM in all browsers is going to ensure that all > interfaces built in HTML5 (which will be pretty much everything) will be > opaque to users, and it will be illegal to report on security flaws in them > (because reporting a security flaw in DRM exposes you to risk of prosecution > for making a circumvention device), so they will be riddled with holes that > creeps, RATters, spooks, authoritarians and crooks will be able to use to > take over your computer and fuck you in every possible way. > > > > > > Link to the full article: > -ourselves-into-the-full-orwell> > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aidanoblia at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 06:32:45 2014 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:32:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> Message-ID: The idea then would be to exhaust the possibilities that exist at this time. I find it interesting the position of constructive criticism and use the tools that may be useful at this time, which is key. Itself as an important means and to some extent unexpected achievement. After all, that is what has been requested by Fady Chejade in B. Aires, building from below, that people express. Regards 2014/1/11 Norbert Bollow > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would > > very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the > > Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from > > such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing how > > outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input > > processes such as these. > > In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling > substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand > the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the > Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the > substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable. > > If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a failure > before it has even started. > > But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!! > > I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which > various committees are populated are significant only if those > shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and > accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's > output document not having worthwhile content. > > I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others have > made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it is > simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection processes. > > Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive > Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a > proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the > substantive discourse”? > > I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document. > > Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a > consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the > editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching IGC > consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach IGC > consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a > proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a > sign-on statement. > > 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 > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 12 07:15:39 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:15:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: <20140112131539.6b71ed80@quill> William Drake wrote: > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > the contents of the > > letter certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the > > people who met in person in civil society meetings to discuss these > > matters, > > Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not > wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or > expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said > permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a > position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. I agree that no suggestion of a permanent commitment of any kind was made, and hence certainly no decision implying a permanent commitment can possibly have been made. In my view there's nothing wrong if people later say something like “I suggest to change this decision for reasons X, Y, Z”; it can be part of the reasoning that the situation has changed in significant ways. If however people don't explain that they have changed their view, but nevertheless those who are in some ways spokespersons for the group act contrary to what had been a consensus, then I would suggest that something is going wrong, and it is definitely quite legitimate when then some pointed questions are asked about what is going on. Nota bene the definition of the term “consensus” that I'm using (since a long time, and in all of the above) is “absence of sustained opposition”, which is by the way a well-established definition. To say “there is consensus” is very different from saying “everyone agreed”. There are relatively few political processes in which one seeks to get the explicit agreement of each member of a group. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 07:49:08 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:19:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52D28F44.1040606@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The distinction we need to make here is between 1net being a conduit > to submit CS names (the current case) and 1net deciding the CS names > (which has not been proposed) > > I would be joining a mass protest if the latter was the case, but it > isn't. I personally have no great problem with 1net as a conduit if > that is what the Brazil organisers want. Not a big enough issue IMHO. > And I think that is where most of the groups mentioned below (if not > all) stand. > > But yes, if that is not the case, let's clear it up on our lists. Ian/ All I do not think that civil society should alone shoulder the complete burden of political naivete and pussy-footing in an environment rife with deep strategic intentions and plans, and the implementation thereof..... Now, I cant have much against those who are thus in a deeply strategic mode. They have their political objectives, about which they must be convinced are the right ones, and are keen on achieving them, with all effort, resources, brains and so on.. But they are certainly not into being naive and pussy-footing... Civil society represents the interests of the most marginalised... It has no right to sacrifice them at the altar of either laziness or political naivete and pussy-footing, and stepping back limply every time someone pushes us... But that is exactly what we are doing here all the time.... Whether it is the recent WIPO treaty negotiations in Marrakesh on access to published works for the disabled or the issue of right to food security at the even more recent WTO meeting at Bali, it is often civil society groups and individuals who anticipate moves of those opposed to progressive causes, strategize counter moves, join up tactically with actors that can help and so on.... They are not sitting around waffling and being pushed and shoved around by the powerful... Which I am sorry to say is what the global Internet governance civil society is doing right now... And this cannot be excused. We must stand up to our responsibility.. I exhort all right thinking people here to pull up their socks, look around to see what is happening, and make their strategies and act on them - they owe it to the cause of the people who cannot be here to fight for their rights.. Now, one can recognise that there are indeed people here who are comfortable to accept and accommodate the 'push', and the directions from where the push is coming, because they consider such accommodation as going well with their specific political objectives .. Very fine... These are politically critical times, and to be strategic is just what is needed... What I have a big problem with, however,is with those who profess that they dont want this rather forceful - almost violent - push to be accommodated, which has reconfigured global IG related civil society, at least with regard to the Brazil meeting, and as per the best hopes of those involved, for ever afterwards.... But then they simply do nothing about it. The time for such procrastination is over... This is a key political juncture for the global civil society involved with IG, and to not do anything now is as much a strong political act as to do something... And therefore we must decide the political act we want to do - have the global IG related civil be organised under an ICANN umbrella, or preserve our independent status, and independent channels of decision making and having relationships with powerful outside actors... 1Net was conceived by ICANN with a specific political purpose, as a part of a composite, well-resourced, strategy. (I suspect that there is active collusion in this regard with the US establishment but if some others want to exclude this consideration, my argument still stands. BTW Fadi did indicate something at Bali to the effect that US knew about the approach he was making to President Rousseff. And since this approach was a part of a composite plan, I would think US knew about the whole plan. 1Net included... Often saying that so-and-so had a 'prior knowing about something' is a polite, controversy-avoiding, way of saying that so-and-so was a part of the plan. This is especially likely since ICANN cannot go around suggesting so seriously that some give-away in terms of some kind of internationalisation of ICANN may be afoot, without the US being a part of most if not all of it. But ignore this part if you want to. Lets take it that 1NEt is simply a part of ICANN's well thought out and implemented strategic plan.) Everything that was expected from 1Net has gone as per the plan, including the civil society playing along extremely nicely. The final strategic intent of the plan - well, excuse me my right to do my 'political thinking' and strategic fore-sight, even if tentative - in my reckoning, is to develop a common position among the 1Net stakeholders and present it as the 'global community's voice', and force Brazilians, from that 'position of strength', to do compromises in terms of final meeting outcomes that protects and furthers the power of many elements of the status quo. (Will expand on this some other time.) It is as a part of these 'negotiations' that perhaps/ likely an already ready proposal of giving in something on US government's oversight role will be offered. I expect this proposal to be somewhat weak, perhaps, giving ICANN direct power to change the root, and not much more. I dont expect legal internationalisation of ICANN. But lets see. And in exchange of such a relatively weak proposal some major give-aways will be sought in terms of the current Brazilian position on the directions towards which global Internet governance mechanism must move. Some European governments will get into the picture as well. All with good intention and for a good cause, certainly. Of course, many things remain unclear... But this in my reckoning is the general plan or outlook. I may be wrong. Now apart from having an extremely strategic, well-laid out plan towards the outcome stages of the Brazil and a controlled outcome from it, it is some kind of a by-product that the global civil society will be disfigured - in being arranged primarily under the ICANN umbrella - for the purpose of the Brazilian meeting. As per the best intentions of the planners, such disfigurement of civil society could in fact be made permanent. Indeed, other than some initial hiccups, like that letter which four networks wrote in Bali - something which is actively being sought to be undone now - their plan vis a vis civil society have been going extremely well. The developing outcomes may even have exceeded their expectations. Normally we should have safe civil society spaces where we could discuss such possible scenarios and strategies of powerful actors just among ourselves . But we all know we have lost such safe spaces, if they ever occurred, and global civil society in the IG space is being practically run over.... I still have great hopes from the Brazil meeting, which I think will provide some major breakthroughs. I wished to avoid openly assessing the strategy of some groups in this way, which I admit does reduce mutual trust. But I see the involved civil society groups looking like entirely losing their bearing. To me, the danger is the very survival of IG civil society as an independent entity, and this is too important an imperative which needed to be addressed urgently, whereby I just needed to write the above note. I may say here once again that all actors, convinced of their righteousness of positions and objectives, as they must be, have a right to be smart and strategic.... My note is really not so much about attributing bad motives to other actors, as it to try and wake up civil society to what it itself needs to do -being similarly smart and strategic...... parminder > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drak > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:49 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Best Bits > Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the > question > > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to > remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus > meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying > really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a > lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC > still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked > everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open > discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in > the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part > of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to > the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their > representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by > extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to > interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society >>> decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball >>> rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of >>> consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have >>> made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get >>> agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any >>> was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of >>> them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how >>> they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may >>> appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of >>> seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL >>> interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if >>>> IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the >>>> representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net >>>> playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing >>>> this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring >>>> repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 08:05:27 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:35:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D29317.6030304@itforchange.net> There seems to be a lot of agreement here that this is serious question (I think it is a foundational one with respect to civil society configuration in the IG space) - whether different civil society groups want to deal directly with the Brazil meeting organisers or if they want to do so primarily through 1Net as a single conduit. And that, accordingly, we should seek the guidance of the membership of different civil society configurations, wherever and whichever way possible, to have a clear decision on this. I suggest that we do exactly that... I will like the IGC membership for instance to vote on choosing one of the below options With regard to the forthcoming Brazil meeting, do they want, 1. primarily, to deal directly and independently on all key issues with the Brazilian meeting organisers (through the various organising committees being assembled, or otherwise) OR 2. primarily, to deal through the 1 Net structure as a single conduit... It should be obvious that this is not about civil society having any relationship with 1Net or not.... This could be in form of participating in a cross stakeholder dialogue - which is all I knew, and was told 1Net is about, when its steering committee was chosen.... Or it could even be in form of some organisations/ groups among us using that platform for developing common positions with business and tech community for the Brazil meeting (which clearly seems as its primary purpose now)... Everyone has a right to join up with whoever they wish to for such joint positions, or strategizing.. Well, some groups may even decide to do it with the US gov, or the Chinese gov or with Google plus Facebook... That is open for anyone to do.. What is being questioned here is whether we are ready to accept 1NET as our single conduit to the Brazilian meeting, which hopefully is going to be a very important one for the future of global Internet governance. parminder On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > *********************************************** > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sun Jan 12 08:37:39 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:37:39 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: Two things Bill said really resonated with me: --'Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing' --'BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items.' Ginger says: Someone else said something like--'not everyone was in Bali'... Adam and others have shown great common sense, saying in that it is time to work constructively and move on. Now that we know what the two main themes are going to be, we can start work on substantial input, so our representatives have something to take to the table. Cheers, Ginger It seems, as others.' On 12 January 2014 04:31, William Drake wrote: > Hi Norbert > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > William Drake wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder > wrote: > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > However, before the message that the meeting would now be an > LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. > As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have > insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate > our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > > > For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in > agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us > both :-) > > Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist > on dealing directly with the LOC > > > The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online > at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: > > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) > IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the > Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) > > > Thanks > > > In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might > be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the > signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC > has not formally endorsed it. > > > Thank you for clarifying this. > > The two people who were at the time the > co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter > certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met > in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, > > > Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not > wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or > expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said > permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position > that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself > say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been > routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. > > Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the > positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people > don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough > consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this > floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get > closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 > names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. > > *Correct ...* > > > So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 > names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. > > *Correct ...* > > > If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through > the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are > putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to > accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be > in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and > submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces > compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 > committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the > networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of > them do. > > And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass > on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve > been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' > nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody > granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in > this position, either. > > We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either > we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. > > BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is > on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less > importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 08:43:41 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:13:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D29C0D.5070306@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform,\ I agree, and think this is very important. When CS reps on steering committee of 1Net were chosen what was know was that 1Net is just a cross stakeholder dialogue space... I welcomed it in this role, but as I mentioned earlier on this list, I dont think a steering committee of a discussion space has a very important role, and thus ignored the process of SC selection, as not politically important. Now suddenly, 1Net is the co-organiser of Brazil meeting and the single conduit for non gov stakeholders (and we have to believe that these roles have been foisted by the Brazilians on a poor, organisationally non existent, 1Net, but well) .... I think the CS reps on SC which were chosen with a particular role in mind must re-seek the mandate of those who selected them whether and how to undertake dramatically different roles that 1Net has now been given (or rather has taken up). The networks that constituted the process of selection of these reps must decide on the new role of 1Net, and the chosen CS reps on SC should act as per the instructions of the joint view of CS networks... If the chair of the CS CC group that selected them (Ian), says, for instance, as he does, that CS CC plans to send nominations directly to LOG, then CS reps on the SC must tell others on 1Net that this is how it is, and contribute to forming 1Net's view on it.... parminder > and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > *********************************************** > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 08:59:55 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:29:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: <52D29FDB.7030207@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 07:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Two things Bill said really resonated with me:\ > > > --'Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing' Ginger, This is misleading.... The issue of civil society taking an active direct role in Brazil meeting was discussed for a long time of IGC and BB lists before and after Bali... And no one objecting to the what looked like emerging consensus that civil society should be there directly, in an active role... But fine, I am ready for people to re-decide on this issue. But dont take it to be a non important issue. > > --'BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is > who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally > less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting > agenda items. IF it is as you say as above.. 1. Why is 1Net, or someone on 1Net's behalf, so insistent to take the single conduit role... (Going to the extent to getting reversed an earlier decision of LOG announced late Dec by Carlos on this list). Let its leave it as so many in CS want it to.... As Is should should the burden of giving way be always on the CS... 2. No, it is not just about 2 conference committee... it is going to be about participant lists (as per current info, the meeting is by invitation), and most importantly it is to be about substantive inputs and framing final outcomes, which is the big game (and perhaps a lot of other meeting related things) ............ Can civil society also sometime be strategic! parminder > > Ginger says: > Someone else said something like--'not everyone was in Bali'... > > Adam and others have shown great common sense, saying in that it is > time to work constructively and move on. > > Now that we know what the two main themes are going to be, we can > start work on substantial input, so our representatives have > something to take to the table. > > Cheers, > Ginger > > > > It seems, as others.' > > > > > On 12 January 2014 04:31, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi Norbert > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > >> William Drake > wrote: >> >>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>>> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an >>>>> LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. >>>>> As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have >>>>> insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, >>>> >>>> Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate >>>> our participation when we expressly decided against it.. >>> >>> For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in >>> agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us >>> both :-) >>> >>> Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist >>> on dealing directly with the LOC >> >> The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online >> at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: >> >> Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net >> ) >> IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org ) >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the >> Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org >> ) >> Association for Progressive Communications – APC >> (anriette at apc.org ) > > Thanks > >> >> In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter >> might >> be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the >> signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC >> has not formally endorsed it. > > Thank you for clarifying this. > >> The two people who were at the time the >> co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter >> certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people >> who met >> in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, > > Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. > Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as > agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in > that room said permanently committed the networks of which they’re > members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by > others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse > the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that > this is IGC’s position. > > Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of > the positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. > Maybe people don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that > won’t lead to rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either > way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines > for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said > yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser > wrote: > >>> So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each >>> submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. >> *Correct ...* >>> >>> So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each >>> submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. >> *Correct ...* > * > * > If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names > through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, > then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of > deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. > The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is > why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net > SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces compelling them). > At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 committees. > Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the > networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which > most of them do. > > And if it’sthe 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it > just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets > feel may say they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select > among competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll be accused > of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and > 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. > > We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. > Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. > > BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here > is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of > infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive > inputs on the meeting agenda items. > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 09:38:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:38:03 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <52D29C0D.5070306@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <52D29C0D.5070306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0c6e01cf0fa3$e90839b0$bb18ad10$@gmail.com> Following this below and in recognition of this unanticipated significantly expanded role of Inet with respect to the Brazil meeting, the Community Informatics network (CIN) reserves the right to present itself for participation on the Inet Steering Committee as part of the CS and Academic components and to further present candidates for those Civil Society and Academic Committees and activities where members of the CIN have particular expertise and knowledge to contribute. The CIN is currently completing a full NomCom process. Reporting is expected immanently. However, based on these new developments the CIN reserves the right to adapt the output of these processes to respond to these new opportunities for effective participation and contributions from the network and from within the context of the Community Informatics Declaration for an Internet for the Common Good. Once our NomCom process is complete we will, in recognition of the revised role for Inet, look to realize the CIN's appropriate role within Inet's current and future activities as significant Civil Society and Academic stakeholder contributors. Mike -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:44 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a > lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC > still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked > everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open > discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in > the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part > of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to > the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their > representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform,\ I agree, and think this is very important. When CS reps on steering committee of 1Net were chosen what was know was that 1Net is just a cross stakeholder dialogue space... I welcomed it in this role, but as I mentioned earlier on this list, I dont think a steering committee of a discussion space has a very important role, and thus ignored the process of SC selection, as not politically important. Now suddenly, 1Net is the co-organiser of Brazil meeting and the single conduit for non gov stakeholders (and we have to believe that these roles have been foisted by the Brazilians on a poor, organisationally non existent, 1Net, but well) .... I think the CS reps on SC which were chosen with a particular role in mind must re-seek the mandate of those who selected them whether and how to undertake dramatically different roles that 1Net has now been given (or rather has taken up). The networks that constituted the process of selection of these reps must decide on the new role of 1Net, and the chosen CS reps on SC should act as per the instructions of the joint view of CS networks... If the chair of the CS CC group that selected them (Ian), says, for instance, as he does, that CS CC plans to send nominations directly to LOG, then CS reps on the SC must tell others on 1Net that this is how it is, and contribute to forming 1Net's view on it.... parminder > and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in >>> Bali that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets >>> not forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. >>> Lets not call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to >>> beginning the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net >>> on the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of >>> consensus, to avoid working through the /1net for all things related >>> to Brazilian meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make >>> that sort of decision. And we were not a civil society congress >>> that could have made such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get >>> agreement for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting >>> at the moment, they have done well at getting us information before >>> any was available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the >>> work they did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the >>> organizers could have given them greater access to what was going >>> on, but at least one of them is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how >>> they do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG >>> may appear to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to >>> cover civil society as a whole. We are just the early participants >>> in an effort that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a >>> full set of seats on the steering group seems like a better way to >>> allow ALL interested CS stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if >>>> IGC, Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), >>>> and whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with >>>> the position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the >>>> entire 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of >>>> the TC initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that >>>> this is confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view >>>> of a few people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the >>>> representatives of those networks to please say “my network” don’t >>>> support 1Net playing this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t >>>> support 1Net playing this role, as the latter is really unfair to >>>> the networks that don’t agree, and it has caused confusion among >>>> other stakeholders requiring repeated explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > *********************************************** > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sun Jan 12 09:44:31 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:44:31 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52D29FDB.7030207@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <52D29FDB.7030207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Parminder, point taken. I did not mean to underestimate that. Cheers, gp On 12 January 2014 07:59, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 12 January 2014 07:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Two things Bill said really resonated with me:\ > > > > > --'Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing' > > > > Ginger, > > This is misleading.... The issue of civil society taking an active direct > role in Brazil meeting was discussed for a long time of IGC and BB lists > before and after Bali... And no one objecting to the what looked like > emerging consensus that civil society should be there directly, in an > active role... But fine, I am ready for people to re-decide on this issue. > But dont take it to be a non important issue. > > > > --'BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who > is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less > importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > > > > > IF it is as you say as above.. > > 1. Why is 1Net, or someone on 1Net's behalf, so insistent to take the > single conduit role... (Going to the extent to getting reversed an earlier > decision of LOG announced late Dec by Carlos on this list). Let its leave > it as so many in CS want it to.... As Is should should the burden of giving > way be always on the CS... > > 2. No, it is not just about 2 conference committee... it is going to be > about participant lists (as per current info, the meeting is by > invitation), and most importantly it is to be about substantive inputs and > framing final outcomes, which is the big game (and perhaps a lot of other > meeting related things) ............ Can civil society also sometime be > strategic! > > parminder > > > Ginger says: > Someone else said something like--'not everyone was in Bali'... > > Adam and others have shown great common sense, saying in that it is time > to work constructively and move on. > > Now that we know what the two main themes are going to be, we can start > work on substantial input, so our representatives have something to take > to the table. > > > > > Cheers, > Ginger > > > > It seems, as others.' > > > > > On 12 January 2014 04:31, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Norbert >> >> On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an >> LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. >> As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have >> insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, >> >> >> Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate >> our participation when we expressly decided against it.. >> >> >> For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in >> agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us >> both :-) >> >> Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist >> on dealing directly with the LOC >> >> >> The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online >> at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: >> >> Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) >> IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the >> Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) >> Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might >> be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the >> signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC >> has not formally endorsed it. >> >> >> Thank you for clarifying this. >> >> The two people who were at the time the >> co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter >> certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met >> in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, >> >> >> Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not >> wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or >> expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said >> permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position >> that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself >> say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been >> routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. >> >> Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the >> positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people >> don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough >> consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this >> floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get >> closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants >> >> On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser >> wrote: >> >> So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit >> 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. >> >> *Correct ...* >> >> >> So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit >> 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. >> >> *Correct ...* >> >> >> If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names >> through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they >> are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations >> to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to >> be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and >> submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces >> compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 >> committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the >> networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of >> them do. >> >> And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just >> pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say >> they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' >> nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody >> granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in >> this position, either. >> >> We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. >> Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. >> >> BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who >> is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less >> importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 09:57:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:57:03 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52D29FDB.7030207@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <52D29FDB.7030207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0c7c01cf0fa6$927ce480$b776ad80$@gmail.com> Further to this, if there is such a concern to begin to address substantive issues why has there been no comment or discussion on the Community Informatics Declaration which to the best of my knowledge is the only new substantive content developed from within Civil Society for presentation in the context of the Brazil meeting? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel On Sunday 12 January 2014 07:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Two things Bill said really resonated with me:\ --'Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing' Ginger, This is misleading.... The issue of civil society taking an active direct role in Brazil meeting was discussed for a long time of IGC and BB lists before and after Bali... And no one objecting to the what looked like emerging consensus that civil society should be there directly, in an active role... But fine, I am ready for people to re-decide on this issue. But dont take it to be a non important issue. --'BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. IF it is as you say as above.. 1. Why is 1Net, or someone on 1Net's behalf, so insistent to take the single conduit role... (Going to the extent to getting reversed an earlier decision of LOG announced late Dec by Carlos on this list). Let its leave it as so many in CS want it to.... As Is should should the burden of giving way be always on the CS... 2. No, it is not just about 2 conference committee... it is going to be about participant lists (as per current info, the meeting is by invitation), and most importantly it is to be about substantive inputs and framing final outcomes, which is the big game (and perhaps a lot of other meeting related things) ............ Can civil society also sometime be strategic! parminder Ginger says: Someone else said something like--'not everyone was in Bali'... Adam and others have shown great common sense, saying in that it is time to work constructively and move on. Now that we know what the two main themes are going to be, we can start work on substantial input, so our representatives have something to take to the table. Cheers, Ginger It seems, as others.' On 12 January 2014 04:31, William Drake wrote: Hi Norbert On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: William Drake wrote: On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us both :-) Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist on dealing directly with the LOC The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) Thanks In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC has not formally endorsed it. Thank you for clarifying this. The two people who were at the time the co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. Correct ... So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. Correct ... If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 10:12:56 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:12:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: "BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. " The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, the issues and positions, rather than for the who. I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow out of context. Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: > Hi Norbert > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > William Drake wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder > wrote: > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > However, before the message that the meeting would now be an > LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. > As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have > insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate > our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > > > For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in > agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us > both :-) > > Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist > on dealing directly with the LOC > > > The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online > at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: > > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) > IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the > Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) > > > Thanks > > > In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might > be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the > signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC > has not formally endorsed it. > > > Thank you for clarifying this. > > The two people who were at the time the > co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter > certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met > in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, > > > Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not > wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or > expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said > permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position > that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself > say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been > routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. > > Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the > positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people > don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough > consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this > floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get > closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 > names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. > > *Correct ...* > > > So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 > names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. > > *Correct ...* > > > If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through > the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are > putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to > accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be > in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and > submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces > compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 > committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the > networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of > them do. > > And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass > on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve > been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' > nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody > granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in > this position, either. > > We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either > we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. > > BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is > on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less > importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 10:25:50 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:25:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: +1 to Deirdre points. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jan 12, 2014 4:13 PM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > "BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who > is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less > importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > " > > The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful > example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my > (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. > Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see > very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me > then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the > various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, > the issues and positions, rather than for the who. > I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow > out of context. > Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely > important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the > meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". > In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for > facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil > meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. > > > On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Norbert >> >> On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an >> LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. >> As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have >> insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, >> >> >> Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate >> our participation when we expressly decided against it.. >> >> >> For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in >> agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us >> both :-) >> >> Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist >> on dealing directly with the LOC >> >> >> The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online >> at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: >> >> Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) >> IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the >> Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) >> Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might >> be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the >> signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC >> has not formally endorsed it. >> >> >> Thank you for clarifying this. >> >> The two people who were at the time the >> co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter >> certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met >> in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, >> >> >> Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not >> wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or >> expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said >> permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position >> that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself >> say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been >> routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. >> >> Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the >> positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people >> don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough >> consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this >> floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get >> closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants >> >> On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser >> wrote: >> >> So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 >> names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. >> >> *Correct ...* >> >> >> So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 >> names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. >> >> *Correct ...* >> >> >> If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names >> through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they >> are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations >> to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to >> be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and >> submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces >> compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 >> committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the >> networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of >> them do. >> >> And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just >> pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say >> they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' >> nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody >> granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in >> this position, either. >> >> We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. >> Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. >> >> BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who >> is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less >> importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 10:32:44 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:32:44 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> Message-ID: <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> Deidre and all, The "who" in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in determining the "what" of the expressions that are allowed to appear because the "who" on these committees provide the framing of the questions which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view which are "acceptable" and those which fall outside of those norms. The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because the "who" of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of people talking about other people's work and almost no one actually speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close association and direct sympathy. As I've noted several times in the past actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well "re"presented by those who did participate in WSIS. Grassroots users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM To: Internet Governance; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel "BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. " The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, the issues and positions, rather than for the who. I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow out of context. Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: Hi Norbert On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: William Drake wrote: On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us both :-) Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist on dealing directly with the LOC The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications - APC (anriette at apc.org) Thanks In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC has not formally endorsed it. Thank you for clarifying this. The two people who were at the time the co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they're members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC's position. Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there's been little response. Maybe people don't want to be party to more heated exchanges that won't lead to rough consensus, maybe they don't care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG's deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. Correct ... So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. Correct ... If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn't say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who's on the 2 committees. Either it's the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don't have representation, or it's the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. And if it's the 1Net SC, there's the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they've been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it'll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. We've done many cycles on many lists and the clock's ticking down. Either we sort this out of we'll have an overdetermined train wreck. BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Jan 12 11:05:29 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:05:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own" it. The phrase could be better written, I agree. BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve. But I think this is obvious too. frt rgds --c.a. On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on > Internet Governance > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 > From: parminder > To: discuss at 1net.org > > > > On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: >> 1net Participants - >> >> There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil >> meeting - >> http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html > > > from the announcement. > > "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." > > So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and > it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most > respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course > I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on > thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for > this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses > who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and > fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to > make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... > > This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at > Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going > through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. > So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non > existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really > disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were > trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet > should go... > > parminder >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 11:07:11 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:37:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The technical community includes a lot of people who have decades of hands on ICT development and capacity building work (UOregon NSRC, packet clearing house for example) and people with that background are, as you say, valuable. I would include community informatics as you describe it as a TC subset, or at least counterpart - but the focus should also be on meaningful contributions submitted by your constituency. That along with engagement will automatically lead to inclusiveness, much more likely than simply demanding a stake 'just because'. Such people who also have a policy background are a great improvement over politically focused actors in any such consensus based igov process. --srs (iPad) > On 12-Jan-2014, at 21:02, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Deidre and all, > > The “who” in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in determining the “what” of the expressions that are allowed to appear because the “who” on these committees provide the framing of the questions which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view which are “acceptable” and those which fall outside of those norms. > > The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because the “who” of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of people talking about other people’s work and almost no one actually speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close association and direct sympathy. As I’ve noted several times in the past actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well “re”presented by those who did participate in WSIS. Grassroots users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM > To: Internet Governance; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > "BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. " > > The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. > Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, the issues and positions, rather than for the who. > I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow out of context. > Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". > In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. > > > On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: > Hi Norbert > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > William Drake wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > However, before the message that the meeting would now be an > LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. > As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have > insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate > our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > > For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in > agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us > both :-) > > Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist > on dealing directly with the LOC > > The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online > at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: > > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) > IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the > Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) > > Thanks > > > > In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might > be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the > signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC > has not formally endorsed it. > > Thank you for clarifying this. > > > The two people who were at the time the > co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter > certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met > in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, > > Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. > > Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > > So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. > Correct ... > > > So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. > Correct ... > > If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. > > And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. > > We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. > > BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 12 11:08:19 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:08:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] February IGF consultation [IGFmaglist] Request for Public input Message-ID: 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 11:10:45 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:40:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <66BFE915-0A60-445F-9936-9765A1B1EA96@hserus.net> Harking back to an old Aesop fable, king LOG to be replaced by king stork? Essentially, if political jockeying for committee seats rather an constructive engagement becomes the order of the day, we end up with the politically best connected group running things, which doesn't sound quite ideal. --srs (iPad) > On 12-Jan-2014, at 21:35, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the > /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own" > it. The phrase could be better written, I agree. > > BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the > local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve. > But I think this is obvious too. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > >> On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on >> Internet Governance >> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 >> From: parminder >> To: discuss at 1net.org >> >> >> >>> On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> 1net Participants - >>> >>> There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil >>> meeting - >>> http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html >> >> >> from the announcement. >> >> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." >> >> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and >> it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most >> respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course >> I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on >> thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for >> this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses >> who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and >> fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to >> make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... >> >> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at >> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going >> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. >> So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non >> existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really >> disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were >> trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet >> should go... >> >> parminder >>> >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Jan 12 13:04:58 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:04:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with you. I consider that the end users in particular (who in the final analysis provide most if not all of the funding) are shamefully ignored. But in that case we should surely be discussing how - process - instead of who - personalities. Ian tried to initiate something like this. And for this meeting the process discussion would seem to have no direct relevance since it would appear that the final selection will be made by the conveners of the meeting - who are not us.. On 12 January 2014 11:32, michael gurstein wrote: > Deidre and all, > > > > The “who” in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in > determining the “what” of the expressions that are allowed to appear > because the “who” on these committees provide the framing of the questions > which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view > which are “acceptable” and those which fall outside of those norms. > > > > The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because > the “who” of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of > people talking about other people’s work and almost no one actually > speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close > association and direct sympathy. As I’ve noted several times in the past > actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those > working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well > “re”presented by those who did participate in WSIS. Grassroots > users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since. > > > > M > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Deirdre Williams > *Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM > *To:* Internet Governance; William Drake > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > > > "BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who > is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less > importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > " > > > > The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful > example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my > (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. > > Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see > very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me > then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the > various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, > the issues and positions, rather than for the who. > > I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow > out of context. > > Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely > important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the > meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". > > In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for > facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil > meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. > > > > On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Norbert > > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > William Drake wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > However, before the message that the meeting would now be an > LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. > As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have > insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate > our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > > > For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in > agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us > both :-) > > Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist > on dealing directly with the LOC > > > The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online > at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: > > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) > IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the > Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) > > > > Thanks > > > > > In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might > be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the > signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC > has not formally endorsed it. > > > > Thank you for clarifying this. > > > > The two people who were at the time the > co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter > certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met > in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, > > > > Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not > wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or > expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said > permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position > that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself > say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been > routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position. > > > > Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the > positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people > don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough > consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this > floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get > closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants > > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > > > So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 > names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. > > *Correct ...* > > > > So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 > names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. > > *Correct ...* > > > > If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through > the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are > putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to > accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be > in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and > submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces > compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 > committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the > networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of > them do. > > > > And if it’s the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass > on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve > been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' > nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody > granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in > this position, either. > > > > We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either > we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. > > > > BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is > on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less > importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 17:16:52 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:16:52 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> Tks Deidre, But in this instance it is the "who" i.e. the Community Informatics Network and its arbitrary and self-serving exclusion from the various representational formations (e.g. the CS: CC); and then the illegitimate usurping of the mantle of "CS" by the CS: CC on behalf of its self-selected and self-appointed members (and the similar process of the "academic" mantle by Giganet); followed by the tacit or active acceptance of this illegitimate process (including through the apparent acceptance of the exclusivity of nominations) by outside agencies such as Inet with or without their awareness of (complicity in) this illegitimacy; that leads directly to the denial of the opportunity to give a voice to these end users (and non-users) including excluding those who through their research and project work endeavor to engage and empower these end users (and non-users) - the "what". Mike From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:05 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Internet Governance; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel I agree with you. I consider that the end users in particular (who in the final analysis provide most if not all of the funding) are shamefully ignored. But in that case we should surely be discussing how - process - instead of who - personalities. Ian tried to initiate something like this. And for this meeting the process discussion would seem to have no direct relevance since it would appear that the final selection will be made by the conveners of the meeting - who are not us.. On 12 January 2014 11:32, michael gurstein wrote: Deidre and all, The "who" in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in determining the "what" of the expressions that are allowed to appear because the "who" on these committees provide the framing of the questions which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view which are "acceptable" and those which fall outside of those norms. The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because the "who" of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of people talking about other people's work and almost no one actually speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close association and direct sympathy. As I've noted several times in the past actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well "re"presented by those who did participate in WSIS. Grassroots users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM To: Internet Governance; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel "BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. " The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, the issues and positions, rather than for the who. I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow out of context. Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: Hi Norbert On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: William Drake wrote: On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us both :-) Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist on dealing directly with the LOC The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications - APC (anriette at apc.org) Thanks In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC has not formally endorsed it. Thank you for clarifying this. The two people who were at the time the co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they're members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC's position. Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there's been little response. Maybe people don't want to be party to more heated exchanges that won't lead to rough consensus, maybe they don't care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG's deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. Correct ... So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. Correct ... If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn't say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who's on the 2 committees. Either it's the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don't have representation, or it's the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. And if it's the 1Net SC, there's the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they've been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it'll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. We've done many cycles on many lists and the clock's ticking down. Either we sort this out of we'll have an overdetermined train wreck. BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 17:24:40 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:24:40 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <010f01cf0fe5$18787a70$49696f50$@gmail.com> And I should add contra Avri and others who suggest that these processes are somehow acceptable as "best efforts" or whatever-these processes of exclusion are systematic and quite obviously content/substance driven since as has already been pointed out, the overtures for inclusion (at least within CS) have been undertaken in one form or another for years and more actively and systematically for several months and the criteria on the basis of which this exclusion is taking place has been arbitrary, personalized and inconsistent depending on who is acting as spokesperson and how they are approaching responses to the arguments that are being presented. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:17 AM To: 'Deirdre Williams' Cc: 'Internet Governance'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel Tks Deidre, But in this instance it is the "who" i.e. the Community Informatics Network and its arbitrary and self-serving exclusion from the various representational formations (e.g. the CS: CC); and then the illegitimate usurping of the mantle of "CS" by the CS: CC on behalf of its self-selected and self-appointed members (and the similar process of the "academic" mantle by Giganet); followed by the tacit or active acceptance of this illegitimate process (including through the apparent acceptance of the exclusivity of nominations) by outside agencies such as Inet with or without their awareness of (complicity in) this illegitimacy; that leads directly to the denial of the opportunity to give a voice to these end users (and non-users) including excluding those who through their research and project work endeavor to engage and empower these end users (and non-users) - the "what". Mike From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:05 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Internet Governance; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel I agree with you. I consider that the end users in particular (who in the final analysis provide most if not all of the funding) are shamefully ignored. But in that case we should surely be discussing how - process - instead of who - personalities. Ian tried to initiate something like this. And for this meeting the process discussion would seem to have no direct relevance since it would appear that the final selection will be made by the conveners of the meeting - who are not us.. On 12 January 2014 11:32, michael gurstein wrote: Deidre and all, The "who" in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in determining the "what" of the expressions that are allowed to appear because the "who" on these committees provide the framing of the questions which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view which are "acceptable" and those which fall outside of those norms. The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because the "who" of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of people talking about other people's work and almost no one actually speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close association and direct sympathy. As I've noted several times in the past actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well "re"presented by those who did participate in WSIS. Grassroots users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM To: Internet Governance; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel "BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. " The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all. Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, the issues and positions, rather than for the who. I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow out of context. Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the meeting through the serendipity of "shared values". In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical. On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake wrote: Hi Norbert On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: William Drake wrote: On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us both :-) Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist on dealing directly with the LOC The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications - APC (anriette at apc.org) Thanks In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC has not formally endorsed it. Thank you for clarifying this. The two people who were at the time the co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters, Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they're members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC's position. Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there's been little response. Maybe people don't want to be party to more heated exchanges that won't lead to rough consensus, maybe they don't care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG's deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. Correct ... So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday. Correct ... If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn't say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who's on the 2 committees. Either it's the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don't have representation, or it's the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. And if it's the 1Net SC, there's the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they've been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it'll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either. We've done many cycles on many lists and the clock's ticking down. Either we sort this out of we'll have an overdetermined train wreck. BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sun Jan 12 17:34:30 2014 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:34:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never get it." Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that deviating from it leads to bad results. Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical common positions, those who had service to the community at their heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their community. Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and nomination processes. Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 18:36:53 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:36:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to Organizers In-Reply-To: <52D30221.1040804@cgi.br> References: <52D30221.1040804@cgi.br> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM Subject: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to Organizers To: steering at lists.bestbits.net, info at irpcharter.org, coordinators at igcaucus.org, APC , "discuss at 1net.org" < discuss at 1net.org> To: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee IRP Coalition Coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus Association for Progressive Communications – APC Dear Friends, *CLARIFICATION:* Now that we published the PRESS RELEASE with all details related to the appointment of the different representatives to the *Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, *we like to mention that the LOG (with G) *- Logistics and Organizational Group, *composed ONLY of CGI.br Members (and NOT identical with LOC (with C) - *Logistics and Organizational Committee*), *was the ONLY group working *beforehand to discuss internally the mission that we have received from our President Dilma Rousseff and try to propose a working process for a successful event in April2014. To avoid unbalanced participation, NO representatives or liaisons of any community were part at the LOG (with G) meetings, reason that we don't send invitation for civil society groups. As announced, until January the 27th, all names of the Committee Members must be public and then really the hard work for all of us together will start. We expect to have the full support of all communities in all steps related to the preparation of this very important meeting to foster the involvement of the global internet community. best regards Hartmut Glaser Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee – CGI.br --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint civil society letter on appointment of representatives to Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance November 25, 2013 To Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications – Minicom; Mr. Virgilio Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation – MCTI; Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency; Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations – MRE; Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee – CGI.br We, as representatives of four networks that include civil society organizations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014. During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting: * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz, Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV) * Ms Carolina Rossini, New American Foundation * Mr Carlos A. Afonso, Nupef Institute * Ms Laura Tresca, Article XIX Brasil This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining to the organization of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have our trust and support. If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons. Yours sincerely, Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) November, 25th, 2013 =================================================================================================================== Steering group discussion notes: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/steering-discussions Tweet from the Best Bits Twitter account: username _bestbits, password temp01 Add events to our calendar: http://bestbits.net/events/#ai1ec-create-event-modal List archives: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/steering -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Steering group discussion notes: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/steering-discussions Tweet from the Best Bits Twitter account: username _bestbits, password temp01 Add events to our calendar: http://bestbits.net/events/#ai1ec-create-event-modal List archives: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/steering -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jan 12 18:39:02 2014 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Clement Martial Aboudem Bavou) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:39:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to Organizers In-Reply-To: References: <52D30221.1040804@cgi.br> Message-ID: Thanks sharing Nnenna From my HTC ONE S Smartphone Le 2014-01-13 00:37, "Nnenna Nwakanma" a écrit : > FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Hartmut Richard Glaser > Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM > Subject: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to > Organizers > To: steering at lists.bestbits.net, info at irpcharter.org, > coordinators at igcaucus.org, APC , "discuss at 1net.org" < > discuss at 1net.org> > > > > To: > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee > IRP Coalition > Coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus > Association for Progressive Communications – APC > > Dear Friends, > > *CLARIFICATION:* > > Now that we published the PRESS RELEASE with all details related to the > appointment of the different representatives to > the *Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance, *we like to mention that the LOG (with G) > *- Logistics and Organizational Group, *composed ONLY of CGI.br Members (and > NOT identical with LOC (with C) - > *Logistics and Organizational Committee*), *was the ONLY group working *beforehand > to discuss internally the mission that we have received > from our President Dilma Rousseff and try to propose a working process for > a successful event in April2014. > > To avoid unbalanced participation, NO representatives or liaisons of any > community were part at the LOG (with G) meetings, > reason that we don't send invitation for civil society groups. > > As announced, until January the 27th, all names of the Committee Members > must be public and then really the hard work > for all of us together will start. > > We expect to have the full support of all communities in all steps related > to the preparation of this very important meeting > to foster the involvement of the global internet community. > > best regards > > Hartmut Glaser > Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee – CGI.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Joint civil society letter on appointment of representatives to Global > Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > November 25, 2013 > > To > Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications – Minicom; > Mr. Virgilio Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the > Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation – MCTI; > Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency; > Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and > Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations – MRE; > Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering > Committee – CGI.br > > We, as representatives of four networks that include civil society > organizations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing > with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in > São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014. > > During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us > met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed > that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons > from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global > Meeting: > > * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz, Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV) > * Ms Carolina Rossini, New American Foundation > * Mr Carlos A. Afonso, Nupef Institute > * Ms Laura Tresca, Article XIX Brasil > > This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as > planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall > remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining > to the organization of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons > should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings > with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We > support > their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back > to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society > groups and individuals. They have our trust and support. > > If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate > to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons. > > Yours sincerely, > Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) > IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the > Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) > > November, 25th, 2013 > > =================================================================================================================== > > Steering group discussion notes: > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/steering-discussions > Tweet from the Best Bits Twitter account: username _bestbits, password > temp01 > Add events to our calendar: > http://bestbits.net/events/#ai1ec-create-event-modal > List archives: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/steering > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 19:25:34 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:55:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <40ABC1F3-8401-42C1-9C36-57FDB7C234EC@hserus.net> Ah, very well put, and essentially what I call stakeholder vs steakholder :) --srs (iPad) > On 13-Jan-2014, at 4:04, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > > For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. > > There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never get it." > > Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that deviating from it leads to bad results. > > Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical common positions, those who had service to the community at their heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their community. > > Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and nomination processes. > > Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) > > Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 12 22:28:03 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:28:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <52D29317.6030304@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <52D29317.6030304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D35D43.9030308@ciroap.org> On 12/01/14 21:05, parminder wrote: > What is being questioned here is whether we are ready to accept 1NET > as our single conduit to the Brazilian meeting, which hopefully is > going to be a very important one for the future of global Internet > governance. Will this even be an issue after the civil society representatives to the Brazil committees are appointed (which should happen within 24 hours by my estimation)? Whilst the LOG asked for 1net to be the conduit for receiving the committee nominations, there has been no suggestion that 1net will continue to be a conduit once the new committees are in place. 1net, like the LOG, becomes superfluous from that point forward. I also doubt whether 1net will be able to collectively put forward anything much substantive for the meeting, because there is so little common ground. In contrast Best Bits participants will very likely have joint substantive contributions through our ongoing processes, and Norbert has just announced he plans to do something very similar for the IGC. So 1net may end up being less of a threat, and more of a damp squib. I don't discount anything that you're saying about the political play that the technical community intended to make with 1net, but I just think it has largely misfired and is not going to be half as influential or powerful as they hoped it was going to be. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 23:28:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:58:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52D36B80.10103@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the > /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own" > it. The phrase could be better written, I agree. > > BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the > local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve. > But I think this is obvious too. I continue to see it as absolutely problematic how civil society leadership went about making or not making the needed relationships with the Brazilians in terms of having a central and equal part in organising the Brazil meeting - a mandate that was given to it since about a month before Bali, and continually over the subsequent 2 months or so. And how easily they abdicated this role to ICANN. This may have its unfortunate impact on the 'Brazil meeting'. I have a relatively better understanding, and even some sympathy, for the circumstances of need and real politik that the Brazilians felt, which has led to this decision whereby 1Net - a fictional and/ or programmed entity created by ICANN - is now a co-organiser of the meeting on equal terms with the Brazilians. In fact, rather *in preference to* this arrangement, I would have ICANN co-hosting this meeting with the Brazilians. In that case at least everyone would know who is who. And yes, ICANN is of course pretty important is the scheme of things. But whatever be its other good points, it does not have a fraction of similar 'honest broker' image as the Brazilians do, which was the reason that the proposed Brazilian meeting evoked such an excitement and anticipation. The shift to an ICANN co-ownership may be dictated by needs of real politiks but also causes considerable loss. Hopefully the loss does not outweigh the advantage, if any. One does understand that moving ahead on transforming global governance of the Internet will as much be about open and honest dealings, as it will be about real politik, and if it is ICANN which is coming out with a part of the solution (only a part, since bigger issues lie outside the areas ICANN deals with), it may be accepted that they have a big role in the meeting that deals with this solution (hopefully among others, pertaining to larger real policy issues). On the other hand, 1Net is a fictional entity which IMHO is supposed to give a multistakeholder wrap to ICANN's intentionality and agency - and a very significant part/ aspect of this multistakeholder wrap or clothing is the legitimacy of civil society. This is what worries me. (What is referred here to as 'ICANN's intentionality and agency' itself may be a bigger and complex construct, but lets not digress.) A very big part of global civil society inter alia sees huge problems with ICANN-US relationship, and the ideology that wraps that relationship and also underlies other major axes of global control/ governance of the Internet. Confronting this ideology as well as the associated illegitimate levers of control vis a vis the global Internet is among the major tasks that this part of civil society sees for itself. The artificially created/ foisted so-called multi-stakeholder space of 1Net is not at all conducive to this civil society and its purposes and activities. I can explain why and how, but that would extend this already long email. Enough to say, that it is best that 1Net takes no further substantive role in the Brazil meeting now that the various meeting committees will soon be in place. Let it work outside the official meeting space as it wishes to develop common positions, or whatever, which will have to considered "on an equal footing" with other positions coming from elsewhere. It will be unacceptable for the outputs from 1Net to be specially privileged, with the justification that they are inclusive, since it is multistakeholder entity, which includes civil society, and so on. The surreptitiously slipped in, and entirely unnecessary, role of 1Net in forming the Brazil meeting committees was bad enough. You heard Ian Peter as leading the coordination committee of four civil society groups saying that he intends to send the civil society nominations directly to LOG (perhaps copying 1Net as a kind gesture). The message there should be clear. My organisation (and there are many others) will be glad to get a confirmation from the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br. that similar completely unnecessary roles will not be constructed for 1Net when the tasks of listing participants, and, even more importantly, sorting substantive inputs, channelising them, and developing final meeting outcomes, come up. Especially once the Brazil committees are in place, I dont see any role that 1Net needs to play within the meetings 'official space'. It is different if ICANN is helping the organisers with some logistics and so on. But, I fail to see what role 1Net which is really just an elist plus, now, a 20 member steering committee, with no other organisational form or resources, could play. But if there is some continued official role for it, let us know it clearly upfront, rather than be constantly surprised as we have been with the back and forth on who is dealing with the committee nomination processes. Carlos, as you can well make out, this query is primarily addressed to the core Brazilian organisers, or the CGI.Br. I have the email id that you published to contact the organisers. However, I am not sure how it works and who reads its messages and responds, I therefore request you and Hartmut to pass this on to whoever you think should read it, and get a response for us. Thanks, and best wishes. parminder > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote: >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on >> Internet Governance >> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 >> From: parminder >> To: discuss at 1net.org >> >> >> >> On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> 1net Participants - >>> >>> There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil >>> meeting - >>> http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html >> >> from the announcement. >> >> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." >> >> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and >> it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most >> respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course >> I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on >> thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for >> this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses >> who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and >> fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to >> make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... >> >> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at >> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going >> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. >> So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non >> existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really >> disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were >> trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet >> should go... >> >> parminder >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Jan 13 05:47:17 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:47:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D36B80.10103@itforchange.net> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> <52D36B80.10103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <774538259.12740.1389610037401.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p15> I support Parminder's clearly documented end expressed opinion about the non-role of 1net in the course of the Brazil Global MS Meeting preparatory process. CS doesn't need a mediator for developing some "IG middleware" under the umbrelle of ICANN and endorsed by it. It has to play its fundamental role as a partner on equal footing with govenrments, international institutions and private sector if the MSH basic principles -referred to in the Meeting title- are respected. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 13/01/14 05:29 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" > Copie à : "Best Bits" > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance > > > On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the > > /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own" > > it. The phrase could be better written, I agree. > > > > BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the > > local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve. > > But I think this is obvious too. > > I continue to see it as absolutely problematic how civil society > leadership went about making or not making the needed relationships with > the Brazilians in terms of having a central and equal part in organising > the Brazil meeting - a mandate that was given to it since about a month > before Bali, and continually over the subsequent 2 months or so. And how > easily they abdicated this role to ICANN. This may have its unfortunate > impact on the 'Brazil meeting'. I have a relatively better > understanding, and even some sympathy, for the circumstances of need and > real politik that the Brazilians felt, which has led to this decision > whereby 1Net - a fictional and/ or programmed entity created by ICANN - > is now a co-organiser of the meeting on equal terms with the Brazilians. > > In fact, rather *in preference to* this arrangement, I would have > ICANN co-hosting this meeting with the Brazilians. In that case at least > everyone would know who is who. And yes, ICANN is of course pretty > important is the scheme of things. But whatever be its other good > points, it does not have a fraction of similar 'honest broker' image as > the Brazilians do, which was the reason that the proposed Brazilian > meeting evoked such an excitement and anticipation. The shift to an > ICANN co-ownership may be dictated by needs of real politiks but also > causes considerable loss. Hopefully the loss does not outweigh the > advantage, if any. One does understand that moving ahead on transforming > global governance of the Internet will as much be about open and honest > dealings, as it will be about real politik, and if it is ICANN which is > coming out with a part of the solution (only a part, since bigger issues > lie outside the areas ICANN deals with), it may be accepted that they > have a big role in the meeting that deals with this solution (hopefully > among others, pertaining to larger real policy issues). > > On the other hand, 1Net is a fictional entity which IMHO is supposed > to give a multistakeholder wrap to ICANN's intentionality and agency - > and a very significant part/ aspect of this multistakeholder wrap or > clothing is the legitimacy of civil society. This is what worries me. > (What is referred here to as 'ICANN's intentionality and agency' itself > may be a bigger and complex construct, but lets not digress.) A very > big part of global civil society inter alia sees huge problems with > ICANN-US relationship, and the ideology that wraps that relationship and > also underlies other major axes of global control/ governance of the > Internet. Confronting this ideology as well as the associated > illegitimate levers of control vis a vis the global Internet is among > the major tasks that this part of civil society sees for itself. The > artificially created/ foisted so-called multi-stakeholder space of 1Net > is not at all conducive to this civil society and its purposes and > activities. I can explain why and how, but that would extend this > already long email. > > Enough to say, that it is best that 1Net takes no further substantive > role in the Brazil meeting now that the various meeting committees will > soon be in place. Let it work outside the official meeting space as it > wishes to develop common positions, or whatever, which will have to > considered "on an equal footing" with other positions coming from > elsewhere. It will be unacceptable for the outputs from 1Net to be > specially privileged, with the justification that they are inclusive, > since it is multistakeholder entity, which includes civil society, and > so on. > > The surreptitiously slipped in, and entirely unnecessary, role of 1Net > in forming the Brazil meeting committees was bad enough. You heard Ian > Peter as leading the coordination committee of four > civil society groups saying that he intends to send the civil society > nominations directly to LOG (perhaps copying 1Net as a kind gesture). > The message there should be clear. > > My organisation (and there are many others) will be glad to get a > confirmation from the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br. that similar > completely unnecessary roles will not be constructed for 1Net when the > tasks of listing participants, and, even more importantly, sorting > substantive inputs, channelising them, and developing final meeting > outcomes, come up. Especially once the Brazil committees are in place, I > dont see any role that 1Net needs to play within the meetings 'official > space'. It is different if ICANN is helping the organisers with some > logistics and so on. But, I fail to see what role 1Net which is really > just an elist plus, now, a 20 member steering committee, with no other > organisational form or resources, could play. But if there is some > continued official role for it, let us know it clearly upfront, rather > than be constantly surprised as we have been with the back and forth on > who is dealing with the committee nomination processes. > > Carlos, as you can well make out, this query is primarily addressed to > the core Brazilian organisers, or the CGI.Br. I have the email id that > you published to contact the organisers. However, I am not sure how it > works and who reads its messages and responds, I therefore request you > and Hartmut to pass this on to whoever you think should read it, and get > a response for us. > > Thanks, and best wishes. > > parminder > > > > > > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote: > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on > >> Internet Governance > >> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 > >> From: parminder > >> To: discuss at 1net.org > >> > >> > >> > >> On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: > >>> 1net Participants - > >>> > >>> There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil > >>> meeting - > >>> http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html > >> > >> from the announcement. > >> > >> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." > >> > >> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and > >> it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most > >> respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course > >> I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on > >> thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for > >> this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses > >> who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and > >> fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to > >> make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... > >> > >> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at > >> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going > >> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. > >> So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non > >> existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really > >> disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were > >> trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet > >> should go... > >> > >> parminder > >>> FYI, > >>> /John > >>> > >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> discuss mailing list > >>> discuss at 1net.org > >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list > >> discuss at 1net.org > >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 13 06:21:05 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:51:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat > channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, > someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. > > There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting > someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never > get it." On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out of what appears to be unwilling hands. 1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind. That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote "Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engageconstructively with CGI.br? To which Carlos responded "Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures havedirect access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. " I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in there. But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role... > > Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work > and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more > powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when > the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that > deviating from it leads to bad results. Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion. Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not to the powerful and highly well organised ones.. parminder > > Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who > worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical > common positions, those who had service to the community at their > heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being > able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their > community. > > Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this > community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and > nomination processes. > > Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion > or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) > > Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jan 13 06:59:31 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:29:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7ABA38A9-AB0F-4ECC-9EFA-0EBEF84A93F5@hserus.net> That criticism would actually apply if the constituents of 1net weren't actually doing highly productive and operationally relevant work in the first place. Marginalized constituencies are sometimes marginalized because of a lack of internal capacity within their organizations to actually make meaningful contributions. While I agree that their needs must be taken into account and represented, it does not automatically follow that their representatives always have the required skills or background to claim representation as a matter of entitlement. And in other cases, people who claim entitlement solely as a matter of political gain for themselves or their organizations should definitely be denied any sort of representation. Progressive versus any other (so, "regressive?") belief system does not come into this picture at all. Policy discussions are meant to be collegial and cooperative. Political situations are about achieving control. Diametrically opposed objectives. --srs (iPad) > On 13-Jan-2014, at 16:51, parminder wrote: > > >> On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. >> >> There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never get it." > > On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out of what appears to be unwilling hands. > > 1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind. > > That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote > > "Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage constructively with CGI.br? > > To which Carlos responded > > "Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures have direct access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. " > > I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in there. > > But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role... > >> >> Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that deviating from it leads to bad results. > > Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion. > > Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not to the powerful and highly well organised ones.. > > parminder >> >> Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical common positions, those who had service to the community at their heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their community. >> >> Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and nomination processes. >> >> Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) >> >> Peter >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Jan 13 07:06:19 2014 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:06:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> Hi Parminder, whether that honor of selecting representatives for a number of committees organizing the Brazil meeting was "bestowed" upon 1net or or whether someone in 1net decided to grab that role is beyond my knowledge. So, it is difficult for me to condemn or applaud this. What I was referring to in my previous example was about decision making in an existing group, with an existing leadership, and what rules such a group could have uon which to base its decisions about expanding that leadership. From what I see, both the Brazil meeting and the 1net initiative were new and did not have any pre-existing leadership, so my group leadership example does not really apply to this case. For something that needs to be created from scratch without a prior precedence, such as the Brazil meeting and 1net, there is a bonmot of one of my former bosses, who wanted to express that he expected me to not come to him for every minuitiae decision. He said: "He who takes charge is in charge!" So, when there is a leadership vacuum and things need to get done quickly, perhaps this example fits better than the previously mentioned, which applies to existing leadership structures. Finally, my earlier example was not referring to marginalised or power groups seeking a role to play, but to individual persons seeking nomination to some leadership function. If you want to talk about the role of marginalised communities, it may be useful to look at a general rule about systems of political organisation. I always liked how Aristotle put it (in Book IV of his Politics), when he describes the different forms of government and calls a democracy basically the bad counterpart to a constitutional government (similar to how a tyranny is the bad counterpart to a monarchy) and where he says that when the majority in a democracy rules without the supremacy of law, then it becomes a form of demagoguery. For me from that follows that any democratic form of government must seek to preserve the rights of minorities so that they are not overpowered by the majority. Whether that preservation of their rights extends to alloting one of a limited number of leadership seats to a representative of a minority, however, would be subject to the constitutional setup of such democracy. -- Peter On 13/01/2014 12:21, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat >> channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, >> someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. >> >> There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting >> someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never >> get it." > > On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the > gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It > not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out > of what appears to be unwilling hands. > > 1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's > email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role > giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and > evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind. > > That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was > evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. > This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, > who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to > direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote > > "Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about > civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can > engageconstructively with CGI.br? > > To which Carlos responded > > "Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures > havedirect access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single > conduit. " > > I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net > suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate > that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in > there. > > But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never > asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role... > >> >> Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work >> and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more >> powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when >> the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that >> deviating from it leads to bad results. > > Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion. > > Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised > groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not > to the powerful and highly well organised ones.. > > parminder >> >> Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who >> worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical >> common positions, those who had service to the community at their >> heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being >> able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their >> community. >> >> Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this >> community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and >> nomination processes. >> >> Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion >> or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) >> >> Peter >> > -- Peter H. Hellmonds OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/ --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Jan 13 07:17:08 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:47:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <1D9D96F7-E39D-4A49-91CF-2F6FF160B6F8@hserus.net> Peter, your last paragraph hinges on the concept of affirmative action. It has been of fairly dubious benefit, and has attracted fairly high levels of controversy wherever it has been applied, as opposed to grassroots capacity building among the underprivileged (or more accurately, where it serves as a permanent alternative to such capacity building). --srs (iPad) > On 13-Jan-2014, at 17:36, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > whether that honor of selecting representatives for a number of > committees organizing the Brazil meeting was "bestowed" upon 1net or or > whether someone in 1net decided to grab that role is beyond my > knowledge. So, it is difficult for me to condemn or applaud this. > > What I was referring to in my previous example was about decision making > in an existing group, with an existing leadership, and what rules such a > group could have uon which to base its decisions about expanding that > leadership. From what I see, both the Brazil meeting and the 1net > initiative were new and did not have any pre-existing leadership, so my > group leadership example does not really apply to this case. > > For something that needs to be created from scratch without a prior > precedence, such as the Brazil meeting and 1net, there is a bonmot of > one of my former bosses, who wanted to express that he expected me to > not come to him for every minuitiae decision. He said: "He who takes > charge is in charge!" So, when there is a leadership vacuum and things > need to get done quickly, perhaps this example fits better than the > previously mentioned, which applies to existing leadership structures. > > Finally, my earlier example was not referring to marginalised or power > groups seeking a role to play, but to individual persons seeking > nomination to some leadership function. If you want to talk about the > role of marginalised communities, it may be useful to look at a general > rule about systems of political organisation. I always liked how > Aristotle put it (in Book IV of his Politics), when he describes the > different forms of government and calls a democracy basically the bad > counterpart to a constitutional government (similar to how a tyranny is > the bad counterpart to a monarchy) and where he says that when the > majority in a democracy rules without the supremacy of law, then it > becomes a form of demagoguery. > > For me from that follows that any democratic form of government must > seek to preserve the rights of minorities so that they are not > overpowered by the majority. Whether that preservation of their rights > extends to alloting one of a limited number of leadership seats to a > representative of a minority, however, would be subject to the > constitutional setup of such democracy. > > -- Peter > >> On 13/01/2014 12:21, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >>> For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat >>> channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, >>> someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. >>> >>> There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting >>> someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never >>> get it." >> >> On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the >> gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It >> not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out >> of what appears to be unwilling hands. >> >> 1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's >> email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role >> giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and >> evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind. >> >> That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was >> evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. >> This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, >> who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to >> direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote >> >> "Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about >> civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can >> engageconstructively with CGI.br? >> >> To which Carlos responded >> >> "Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures >> havedirect access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single >> conduit. " >> >> I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net >> suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate >> that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in >> there. >> >> But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never >> asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role... >> >>> >>> Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work >>> and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more >>> powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when >>> the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that >>> deviating from it leads to bad results. >> >> Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion. >> >> Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised >> groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not >> to the powerful and highly well organised ones.. >> >> parminder >>> >>> Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who >>> worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical >>> common positions, those who had service to the community at their >>> heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being >>> able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their >>> community. >>> >>> Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this >>> community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and >>> nomination processes. >>> >>> Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion >>> or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) >>> >>> Peter >>> >> > > -- > Peter H. Hellmonds > > OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/ > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Jan 13 08:34:12 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:34:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to Organizers In-Reply-To: References: <52D30221.1040804@cgi.br> Message-ID: Thanks Nnenna for sharing and Hartmut for the clarification On Monday, January 13, 2014, Clement Martial Aboudem Bavou wrote: > Thanks sharing Nnenna > > From my HTC ONE S Smartphone > Le 2014-01-13 00:37, "Nnenna Nwakanma" > > a écrit : > >> FYI >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Hartmut Richard Glaser* >> Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM >> Subject: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to >> Organizers >> To: steering at lists.bestbits.net, info at irpcharter.org, >> coordinators at igcaucus.org, APC , "discuss at 1net.org" < >> discuss at 1net.org> >> >> >> >> To: >> Best Bits Interim Steering Committee >> IRP Coalition >> Coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus >> Association for Progressive Communications – APC >> >> Dear Friends, >> >> *CLARIFICATION:* >> >> Now that we published the PRESS RELEASE with all details related to the >> appointment of the different representatives to >> the *Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet >> Governance, *we like to mention that the LOG (with G) >> *- Logistics and Organizational Group, *composed ONLY of CGI.br Members (and >> NOT identical with LOC (with C) - >> *Logistics and Organizational Committee*), *was the ONLY group working *beforehand >> to discuss internally the mission that we have received >> from our President Dilma Rousseff and try to propose a working process >> for a successful event in April2014. >> >> To avoid unbalanced participation, NO representatives or liaisons of any >> community were part at the LOG (with G) meetings, >> reason that we don't send invitation for civil society groups. >> >> As announced, until January the 27th, all names of the Committee Members >> must be public and then really the hard work >> for all of us together will start. >> >> We expect to have the full support of all communities in all steps >> related to the preparation of this very important meeting >> to foster the involvement of the global internet community. >> >> best regards >> >> Hartmut Glaser >> Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee – CGI.br >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joint civil society letter on appointment of representatives to Global >> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> November 25, 2013 >> >> To >> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications – Minicom; >> Mr. Virgilio Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the >> Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation – MCTI; >> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency; >> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and >> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations – MRE; >> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee – CGI.br >> >> We, as representatives of four networks that include civil society >> organizations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing >> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on >> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in >> São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014. >> >> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us >> met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed >> that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim >> Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global >> Meeting: >> >> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz, Center for Technology and Society (CTS/F >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- Remmy Nweke, Esq group executive editor, DigitalSENSE Business News Published by DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi, Lagos-Nigeria 234-8023122558, 8051000475 Remmyn at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Jan 13 08:38:48 2014 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:38:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <1D9D96F7-E39D-4A49-91CF-2F6FF160B6F8@hserus.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> <1D9D96F7-E39 D-4A49-91CF-2F6FF160B6F8@hserus.net> Message-ID: How does my paragraph that refers to my understanding of Aristotle's Politics and what in my own opinion follows from that "hinge" on the concept of affirmative action? Afaik aff. action refers to giving preferential access to a college education to a certain minority group in a country that has had a prior history of suppressing that minority. To my recollection the concept of aff. action was designed to help correct the imbalance that this treatment had created. In my opinion it does not apply here but please enlighten me with your thought process leading to your assessment. All I was trying to say was that if the majority in a democracy would simply overpower the minority without regard for their fundamental rights, then the law that stipulates that all are equal is being ignored and thus the democracy deteriorates into demagoguery. -- Peter On 13.01.2014, at 13:17, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Peter, your last paragraph hinges on the concept of affirmative action. It has been of fairly dubious benefit, and has attracted fairly high levels of controversy wherever it has been applied, as opposed to grassroots capacity building among the underprivileged (or more accurately, where it serves as a permanent alternative to such capacity building). --srs (iPad) > On 13-Jan-2014, at 17:36, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > whether that honor of selecting representatives for a number of > committees organizing the Brazil meeting was "bestowed" upon 1net or or > whether someone in 1net decided to grab that role is beyond my > knowledge. So, it is difficult for me to condemn or applaud this. > > What I was referring to in my previous example was about decision making > in an existing group, with an existing leadership, and what rules such a > group could have uon which to base its decisions about expanding that > leadership. From what I see, both the Brazil meeting and the 1net > initiative were new and did not have any pre-existing leadership, so my > group leadership example does not really apply to this case. > > For something that needs to be created from scratch without a prior > precedence, such as the Brazil meeting and 1net, there is a bonmot of > one of my former bosses, who wanted to express that he expected me to > not come to him for every minuitiae decision. He said: "He who takes > charge is in charge!" So, when there is a leadership vacuum and things > need to get done quickly, perhaps this example fits better than the > previously mentioned, which applies to existing leadership structures. > > Finally, my earlier example was not referring to marginalised or power > groups seeking a role to play, but to individual persons seeking > nomination to some leadership function. If you want to talk about the > role of marginalised communities, it may be useful to look at a general > rule about systems of political organisation. I always liked how > Aristotle put it (in Book IV of his Politics), when he describes the > different forms of government and calls a democracy basically the bad > counterpart to a constitutional government (similar to how a tyranny is > the bad counterpart to a monarchy) and where he says that when the > majority in a democracy rules without the supremacy of law, then it > becomes a form of demagoguery. > > For me from that follows that any democratic form of government must > seek to preserve the rights of minorities so that they are not > overpowered by the majority. Whether that preservation of their rights > extends to alloting one of a limited number of leadership seats to a > representative of a minority, however, would be subject to the > constitutional setup of such democracy. > > -- Peter > >>> On 13/01/2014 12:21, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >>> For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat >>> channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, >>> someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. >>> >>> There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting >>> someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never >>> get it." >> >> On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the >> gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It >> not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out >> of what appears to be unwilling hands. >> >> 1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's >> email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role >> giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and >> evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind. >> >> That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was >> evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. >> This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, >> who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to >> direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote >> >> "Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about >> civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can >> engageconstructively with CGI.br? >> >> To which Carlos responded >> >> "Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures >> havedirect access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single >> conduit. " >> >> I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net >> suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate >> that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in >> there. >> >> But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never >> asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role... >> >>> >>> Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work >>> and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more >>> powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when >>> the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that >>> deviating from it leads to bad results. >> >> Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion. >> >> Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised >> groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not >> to the powerful and highly well organised ones.. >> >> parminder >>> >>> Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who >>> worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical >>> common positions, those who had service to the community at their >>> heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being >>> able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their >>> community. >>> >>> Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this >>> community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and >>> nomination processes. >>> >>> Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion >>> or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) >>> >>> Peter > > -- > Peter H. Hellmonds > > OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/ > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 13 08:38:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:08:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D3DCED.2080508@itforchange.net> References: <52D3DCED.2080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D3EC5A.3050805@itforchange.net> Since it is largely about CS and the Brazilian meeting.. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:02:45 +0530 From: parminder To: Milton L Mueller CC: discuss at 1net.org On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ________________________________________ > >> from the announcement. >> >> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." >> >> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and >> it is up to its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most > Parminder, as I read this I wonder where you have been for the last three months. The political complexion of the Brazil meeting has been evident since October. All doubts were cleared up by mid-November, with the initial announcements coming from Brazil. In mid-November the IGP blog wrote: I remember reading it, and also realizing that you had mistaken an announcement made by Adiel by on this list on nov 18 to be an official announcement by the Brazilians. Adiel announced that the non gov members on various organsing committees will be '1Net representatives' who will be selected by the 1Net coordination committee. The Nov 26th official announcement of the 'Brazil meeting' by the Brazilians made no mention of 1NEt at all. It is evident that what Adiel wrote about may be what 1Net wanted but not at all what Brazilians agreed to bestow upon it. ON 27th Nov Carlos confirmed through an email to 2 open CS lists that 1Net was not to be any kind of single conduit or anything.... BTW, I had very poor and intermittent connectivity from late nov to end dec and so yes, I missed a lot of action... But evidently it was only in the LOG meeting report of 20th Dec that 1Net's gate-keeping role appears for the first time in official records. I dont know what happened between end Nov and end Dec, but the above are publicly known facts... I have limited resources to keep following this high politik in all its complications.... But I think civil society should be doing much better than it is doing. That is the point I have been trying to make in the last 2 days or so. > > "The [organizational] structures [announced by CGI] show clearly how the meeting is a negotiated compromise between the Internet technical organizations and Brazil’s government. I agree, it is . Especially now, since the 20th meeting. Although I am not sure we can say it is the 'tech community'. I think it is largely ICANN. > Both sides get to populate half of the four steering committees proposed. The ICANN/Internet Oh! ICANN as Internet! What fetishism . You werent like this, Milton ;) > side takes care of representation of nongovernmental stakeholders (business, civil society, academia and NGOs). We agree on this. That looks like is the deal. And I am fully opposed to it... Just want those in civil society who still do not think, or feign ignorance, that this the deal, to know, now with Milton's confirmation - that this indeed is the deal. That ICANN 'takes care' of the non gov representation at the Brazil meeting... And let they make public their views on this deal.... I have asked for an IGC membership voting whether they support this deal,. Milton, are you ready for such a vote? > The Brazilian side emphasizes representation of states." > > Since the status of the Brazil meeting as a bridge between the technical governance organizations led by ICANN and national-states led by Brazil has has been obvious almost from the beginning of the process, No, that is not how I read Brazil meeting. And I know that is not how most in civil society read it. Brazil meeting arose from some new damning proof of already know unacceptable level of US domination and control over the global Internet . Brazilian officials repeatedly said in Bali that the proposed meeting goes much much beyond ICANN/ I* issues... parminder > I wonder what you actually expect to accomplish by a) pretending that this is a big surprise and b) beating this list and the 1net people over the head with what all of us already know. > > If we're going to have a legitimating and broadly inclusive meeting in April, someone had to kick it off, someone had to take responsibility for organizing it. Efforts have been made by both the Brazil side and the 1net side to be as open and inclusive as possible, though I will admit (and again, was 2 months ahead of you in noticing this) that the early stages of 1net were clumsy and needlessly untransparent. > > [snip] > >> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at >> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going >> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. > Nice try. But for CS, academia and PS as a whole it is actually better to have a single, known, well-observed channel run by a reasonably neutral entity than to have a proliferation of unaccountable back channels. > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 13 08:59:06 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:29:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> <1D9D96F7-E39 D-4A49-91CF-2F6FF160B6F8@hserus.net> Message-ID: <89196827-DB33-4FC0-9064-835F2D030AC7@hserus.net> Hi Peter, this paragraph to be specific. Limited number of seats, and one reserved for a minority. That seems to fit a classical definition of affirmative action. Whether such a constituency is oppressed or not, and whether an NGO well funded enough to participate in a rather wide variety of conferences worldwide constitutes an oppressed minority or not, is up for grabs. --srs (iPad) On 13-Jan-2014, at 19:08, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: >> For me from that follows that any democratic form of government must >> seek to preserve the rights of minorities so that they are not >> overpowered by the majority. Whether that preservation of their rights >> extends to alloting one of a limited number of leadership seats to a >> representative of a minority, however, would be subject to the >> constitutional setup of such democracy. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Jan 13 10:26:24 2014 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:26:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <89196827-DB33-4FC0-9064-835F2D030AC7@hserus.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> <1D9D96F7-E39 D-4A49-91CF-2F6FF160B6F8@hserus.net> <89196827-DB33-4FC0-9064-835F2D030AC7@hserus.net> Message-ID: <478CED90-64EE-4E11-8117-90E6649B1F54@hellmonds.eu> I did not say that one seat *should* be reserved for the minority. I said whether (or not) the preservation of rights implies a reserved seat would depend on setup or the "constitution" of the community. Peter On 13.01.2014, at 14:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Hi Peter, this paragraph to be specific. Limited number of seats, and one reserved for a minority. That seems to fit a classical definition of affirmative action. Whether such a constituency is oppressed or not, and whether an NGO well funded enough to participate in a rather wide variety of conferences worldwide constitutes an oppressed minority or not, is up for grabs. --srs (iPad) On 13-Jan-2014, at 19:08, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: >> For me from that follows that any democratic form of government must >> seek to preserve the rights of minorities so that they are not >> overpowered by the majority. Whether that preservation of their rights >> extends to alloting one of a limited number of leadership seats to a >> representative of a minority, however, would be subject to the >> constitutional setup of such democracy. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jan 13 11:18:41 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:48:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <478CED90-64EE-4E11-8117-90E6649B1F54@hellmonds.eu> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <20140111141003.7718753c@quill> <000601cf0fab$8caa77c0$a5ff6740$@gmail.com> <00e301cf0fe4$01fb4bc0$05f1e340$@gmail.com> <9D98BB3B-8F71-4FFE-8C87-BB419F972A13@hellmonds.eu> <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> <52D3D6BB.8010605@hellmonds.eu> <1D9D96F7-E39 D-4A49-91CF-2F6FF160B6F8@hserus.net> <89196827-DB33-4FC0-9064-835F2D030AC7@hserus.net> <478CED90-64EE-4E11-8117-90E6649B1F54@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <8AF80F4D-576F-457F-A304-C9A4C60E891B@hserus.net> Fair enough, thanks --srs (iPad) > On 13-Jan-2014, at 20:56, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > > I did not say that one seat *should* be reserved for the minority. I said whether (or not) the preservation of rights implies a reserved seat would depend on setup or the "constitution" of the community. > > Peter > > On 13.01.2014, at 14:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Hi Peter, this paragraph to be specific. Limited number of seats, and one reserved for a minority. That seems to fit a classical definition of affirmative action. > > Whether such a constituency is oppressed or not, and whether an NGO well funded enough to participate in a rather wide variety of conferences worldwide constitutes an oppressed minority or not, is up for grabs. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Jan-2014, at 19:08, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > >>> For me from that follows that any democratic form of government must >>> seek to preserve the rights of minorities so that they are not >>> overpowered by the majority. Whether that preservation of their rights >>> extends to alloting one of a limited number of leadership seats to a >>> representative of a minority, however, would be subject to the >>> constitutional setup of such democracy. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 toml at communisphere.com Mon Jan 13 11:47:26 2014 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:47:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Final Report of the CI Nominating Committee to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D415CD.5030206@communisphere.com> References: <52D415CD.5030206@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <52D4189E.7020102@communisphere.com> I was recently honored to be asked to be the (non-voting) Chair of a nominating committee charged with selecting candidates from the Community Informatics Research Network to participate in the upcoming GMMGIF in Brazil. The following Release Statement and Final Report detail the work of the NomCom. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt _Release Statement_ The Final Report of the Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance was completed yesterday. (Copy Attached) The Report details the selection process for nominees to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance (GMMFIG) to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23-24, 2014. The Meeting will focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. The Nominating Committee's (NomCom) charge was to recommend four candidates to participate in shaping the GMMFIC's work. The Nominating Committee 's five voting members were David Nemer, Parminder Jeet Singh, Brian Beaton, Chris Zielinski, and Charles Dhewa. After completing a careful review of the position requirements and candidates, the NomCom chose the following: * Multistakeholder High Level Committee - the nominee was Cristian Berrio Zapata * Executive Multistakeholder Committee - the nominee was Michael Gurstein * 1Net Academic Posts Steering Committee - the nominees were Doug Schuler and Cristian Berrio Zapata Having closely followed the organization of the upcoming meeting in Brazil, the NomCom's members added a codicil to their report, recommending that their selectees also be charged with interfacing with the 1Net, an entity assisting with organizing the April 23-23 Meeting. Details of the NomCom's work including process and candidate biographies can be found in the attached report: Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance, January 12, 2014. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt, (non-voting) Chair of the Nominating Committee TomL at communisphere.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FinalReportCommunityInformaticsNominatingCommittee-January132014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 237945 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 13 13:38:06 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:38:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Cory Doctorow: The Full Orwell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140113193806.7196ec34@quill> Mawaki Chango wrote: > Does anyone know about the actual status with HTML5 in relation to > the DRM issue? Yes, I'm following this closely... > A while ago I saw inputs/comments/analyses of the > issues by a number of organizations (eg, EFF, etc... if my memory is > correct.) Have some of these been taking into account? No, things are still moving forward in accordance to entertainment industry and proprietary platform vendor interests, without any indication of the counterarguments being taken seriously. > While I realize the experience above did not involve any browser per > se, data was still being transmitted over the Internet for DRM > purposes. Have we been smarter handling this since then? Is the way > DRM issues are being handled with this HTML5 proving any more smarter? In some ways the EME (aka HTML5 DRM) architecture is a smarter way to do a bad thing in comparison to previous DRM architectures; the changes wouldn't help with the kind of geolocation issue that you describe. My overall appraisal of the (actually very real) technical improvements provided by the EME architecture is that the main effect is to make DRM more dangerous, through likely greater market adoption. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 13 18:23:44 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:23:44 +1300 Subject: [governance] Final Report of the CI Nominating Committee to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D4189E.7020102@communisphere.com> References: <52D415CD.5030206@communisphere.com> <52D4189E.7020102@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <90C37DDC-7C89-452C-A38F-546AFDACD9B4@gmail.com> Thanks Tom for the notification. Sent from my iPad > On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > I was recently honored to be asked to be the (non-voting) Chair of a nominating committee charged with selecting candidates from the Community Informatics Research Network to participate in the upcoming GMMGIF in Brazil. The following Release Statement and Final Report detail the work of the NomCom. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > Release Statement > > The Final Report of the Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance was completed yesterday. (Copy Attached) > > The Report details the selection process for nominees to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance (GMMFIG) to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23-24, 2014. The Meeting will focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. > > The Nominating Committee’s (NomCom) charge was to recommend four candidates to participate in shaping the GMMFIC’s work. The Nominating Committee ’s five voting members were David Nemer, Parminder Jeet Singh, Brian Beaton, Chris Zielinski, and Charles Dhewa. After completing a careful review of the position requirements and candidates, the NomCom chose the following: > > Multistakeholder High Level Committee - the nominee was Cristian Berrio Zapata > Executive Multistakeholder Committee - the nominee was Michael Gurstein > 1Net Academic Posts Steering Committee - the nominees were Doug Schuler and Cristian Berrio Zapata > > Having closely followed the organization of the upcoming meeting in Brazil, the NomCom’s members added a codicil to their report, recommending that their selectees also be charged with interfacing with the 1Net, an entity assisting with organizing the April 23-23 Meeting. > > Details of the NomCom’s work including process and candidate biographies can be found in the attached report: Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance, January 12, 2014. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt, (non-voting) Chair of the Nominating Committee > TomL at communisphere.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 13 20:31:19 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:31:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] A date for your diaries Message-ID: <4F25627F140340EB814508E168BA0349@Toshiba> https://thedaywefightback.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 13 21:18:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:18:45 +0700 Subject: [governance] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community Message-ID: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> I would like to draw the attention of 1net and others to the full 12 year history and transparency (and depth, breadth and scope) of the Community Informatics community and perhaps of particular interest, the most recent processes for consensus agreement on the Community Informatics Declaration and the development of our NomCom process. http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers . I stand to be corrected, but I believe that none of the other current participants in either the IG CS (such as those represented by the CS: CC) or the IG academic space (e.g. Giganet) have either the transparency (or, with one exception, history) of our community although I understand that one of these groups is currently scrambling to achieve this transparency perhaps because of the light on this issue which the CI community is presenting. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:37 AM To: 'discuss at 1net.org'; 'Adiel Akplogan' Subject: RE: Community Informatics Nomination for the Civil Society Stakeholder Group for the 1Net Steering Committee Adiel, I have the honour of submitting the report of the Community Informatics Network's NomCom process and the Community Informatics community's nominations for appointment to the 1net Steering Committee as representatives of the civil society stakeholder group --Michael Gurstein (Canada). My biography and qualifications for such a status will be provided to you on request. I look forward to receiving confirmation from you of the receipt of this nomination and I trust that this nomination will be responded to in a just and respectful manner recognizing the need overall for broad inclusivity including of experience and orientation and that you/1net will act in a manner reflective of the degree of transparency and accountability to which all those associated with global Internet Governance aspire. Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:47 PM To: governance list IG Caucus Subject: [governance] Final Report of the CI Nominating Committee to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance I was recently honored to be asked to be the (non-voting) Chair of a nominating committee charged with selecting candidates from the Community Informatics Research Network to participate in the upcoming GMMGIF in Brazil. The following Release Statement and Final Report detail the work of the NomCom. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt Release Statement The Final Report of the Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance was completed yesterday. (Copy Attached) The Report details the selection process for nominees to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance (GMMFIG) to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23-24, 2014. The Meeting will focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. The Nominating Committee's (NomCom) charge was to recommend four candidates to participate in shaping the GMMFIC's work. The Nominating Committee 's five voting members were David Nemer, Parminder Jeet Singh, Brian Beaton, Chris Zielinski, and Charles Dhewa. After completing a careful review of the position requirements and candidates, the NomCom chose the following: . Multistakeholder High Level Committee - the nominee was Cristian Berrio Zapata . Executive Multistakeholder Committee - the nominee was Michael Gurstein . 1Net Academic Posts Steering Committee - the nominees were Doug Schuler and Cristian Berrio Zapata Having closely followed the organization of the upcoming meeting in Brazil, the NomCom's members added a codicil to their report, recommending that their selectees also be charged with interfacing with the 1Net, an entity assisting with organizing the April 23-23 Meeting. Details of the NomCom's work including process and candidate biographies can be found in the attached report: Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance, January 12, 2014. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt, (non-voting) Chair of the Nominating Committee TomL at communisphere.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 14 04:11:43 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:11:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community In-Reply-To: References: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140114101143.7d424c54@quill> Seun Ojedeji wrote: > I had mentioned this during the Giganet process(which > received positive response) and i will say it again to CI; any > organisation that intend to provide a global representation "on > behalf" needs to be open and willing to ensure its nomination process > is globally inclusive and not just within its memberships. The CI NomCom process did not intend or claim to choose a set of representatives on behalf of “civil society as a whole” nor on behalf of “academic communities as a whole”; it was a process of a specific (pretty big) community that the Giganet Chair accepts as being (at least in part) academic but not as having relevance to Internet governance, and where the question of acceptance among the select few networks that have formed the “civil society coordination group” alliance is still pending. Consequently (and IMO quite appropriately) this process was started only as a “last resort” of sorts after it had become clear that inclusion of the CI community in the processes that were being organized with the aim of providing a complete set of representatives for stakeholder categories would not be achieved in time for the processes related to the São Paulo meeting (and probably never unless the demand for inclusion would be asserted more forcefully than had been the case so far), and also the CI NomCom's nominations do not provide a full slate of nominations, hence there is no implied claim of representing all relevant communities. 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 Tue Jan 14 04:36:17 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:36:17 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community In-Reply-To: References: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07f701cf110c$15aca730$4105f590$@gmail.com> Hi Seun, Thanks for paying such close attention. With respect to your first question re: 1net and CI, I can only point you to the following paragraph in Tom's covering letter. I do know that only a few members of the CI community are currently closely following these discussions and fortunately several of those were directly involved in the NomCom process so there was likely internal communication between them concerning 1net during the NomCom selection process itself which of course, was not conducted on the open e-list. Having closely followed the organization of the upcoming meeting in Brazil, the NomCom's members added a codicil to their report, recommending that their selectees also be charged with interfacing with the 1Net, an entity assisting with organizing the April 23-23 Meeting. With respect to your second question, a very significant proportion of CI community members are from LDC's, including some of the most active. With respect to the NomCom process, there were candidates from all continents (except Europe) including Laban Bagui, a Cameroonian currently living in South Africa (his bio is included in Tom's) report. While he was unsuccessful in the process Cristian Berrio Zapata, a Columbian currently living in Brazil was a nominee. Charles Dhewa from Harare, Zimbabwe volunteered for and was randomly selected to be on the Nominating committee itself. (As an aside, could I call your attention to the just released special issue of the Journal of Community Informatics on Community Informatics in Southern Africa . Best, Mike From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:06 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: discuss at 1net.org; Adiel Akplogan; bestbits; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC Subject: Re: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: I would like to draw the attention of 1net and others to the full 12 year history and transparency (and depth, breadth and scope) of the Community Informatics community and perhaps of particular interest, the most recent processes for consensus agreement on the Community Informatics Declaration and the development of our NomCom process. http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers . Not poking and definitely not attempting to judge on which is more transparent, but i quickly went through the archive from Dec through Jan and i saw about 3-4 mails relating to 1Net, (one was about the call which was first made on the 30th Dec and the rest were final report and response). I wonder what happened between the call and final report. I also note that the call was for nomination to represent CI, now i am wondering which of the stakeholders is actually CI. I had mentioned this during the Giganet process(which received positive response) and i will say it again to CI; any organisation that intend to provide a global representation "on behalf" needs to be open and willing to ensure its nomination process is globally inclusive and not just within its memberships. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Jan 14 18:15:10 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:15:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules... Message-ID: FYI, http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Principal, DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstubbs at afilias.info Tue Jan 14 18:30:38 2014 From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:30:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Court Ends 'Net Neutrality' On A Technicality Message-ID: <52D5C89E.20909@afilias.info> FYI... http://socialreader.com/me/content/4RBEY?chid=4582&utm_content=win20140114-2143&utm_medium=email&utm_source=toppicks&utm_campaign=cl20140114&email=ken%40stubbs.us --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 14 21:31:55 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Message-ID: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 14 23:50:14 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:50:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> I think that it is worth pointing out that this selection, whatever the evident merits of the individuals selected, was made by a self-appointed group representing a self-selected set of civil society organizations (the CS:CC) from which the Community Informatics network which has been active in civil society (and other matters) concerning the Internet since 2001; was, without cause, explanation or justification, excluded. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 From: Ian Peter Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Ian Peter" To: I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 15 00:34:20 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:04:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52D61DDC.1010300@itforchange.net> Congrats and best wishes to all selected nominees. I am especially happy to see Louis Pouzin in the HLC. Whereas there are other good nominees as well, it is disappointing that a civil society slate is so dis-balanced between developed and developing country participation, 4 to 1. Civil processes used to be meticulous in this regard and would rather err on the side of more developing country nominees.. A connected point, I do not think that the proposed criterion of having a work background in, and linkages to, interests/ issues related to marginalised groups got applied. I am happy to hear committee chair's comment in this regard. Was this criterion applied, and if so, how. Thanks. This term 'marginalised groups' seems to have become kind of esoteric in this space, which is rather problematic. Isnt civil society supposed to be mostly about such issues and interests. parminder On Wednesday 15 January 2014 08:01 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many > thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in > this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very > talented list of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for > HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call > for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, > Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , > and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No > nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the > volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly > talented field and making decisions on final candidates was > subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo > (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting > Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be > controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the > candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such > factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and > constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising > our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number > of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for > Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will > bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern > to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is > a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy > of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit > evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the > United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and > Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of > an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, > online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin*is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is > conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced > authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has > been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group > on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience > includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in > Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and > Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of > Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the > development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She > has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy > issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy > for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based > in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin*is one of the pioneers in computer communications and > the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades > network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end > protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and > contributes to several associations and working groups related to > Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet > awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from > Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book > on computer networks.Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a > strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > *Adam Peake*is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up > activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). > Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment > and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert > on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services > and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for > Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the > United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on > Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel*works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project > Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media > reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and > distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on > Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property > Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American > Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law > degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor > in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by > DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote > Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different > countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote > attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 00:38:15 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:08:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <52D61DDC.1010300@itforchange.net> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D61DDC.1010300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0F046035-F9D5-4FB0-9524-3F729257EE97@hserus.net> The definition of "marginalized group" and the entitlement of any organization to claim to represent them or belong to them is something that is occasionally open to debate. --srs (iPad) > On 15-Jan-2014, at 11:04, parminder wrote: > > > Congrats and best wishes to all selected nominees. > > I am especially happy to see Louis Pouzin in the HLC. > > Whereas there are other good nominees as well, it is disappointing that a civil society slate is so dis-balanced between developed and developing country participation, 4 to 1. Civil processes used to be meticulous in this regard and would rather err on the side of more developing country nominees.. > > A connected point, I do not think that the proposed criterion of having a work background in, and linkages to, interests/ issues related to marginalised groups got applied. I am happy to hear committee chair's comment in this regard. Was this criterion applied, and if so, how. Thanks. > > This term 'marginalised groups' seems to have become kind of esoteric in this space, which is rather problematic. Isnt civil society supposed to be mostly about such issues and interests. > > parminder > >> On Wednesday 15 January 2014 08:01 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration >> >> High Level Committee >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. >> >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. >> >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 15 00:41:17 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:11:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D61F7D.8020400@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 15 January 2014 10:20 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > I think that it is worth pointing out that this selection, whatever > the evident merits of the individuals selected, was made by a > self-appointed group representing a self-selected set of civil society > organizations (the CS:CC) from which the Community Informatics network > which has been active in civil society (and other matters) concerning > the Internet since 2001; was, without cause, explanation or > justification, excluded. > I also consider the exclusion of the CI network as completely unexplained and unjustified.... Especially when in the CI network almost everyone has some direct relationship with marginalised groups related work, causes and interests. And this in the direct context of new ICTs, of which the Internet is of course the central paradigm. On one hand, such a group is excluded from the civil society's apex structure and, on the other hand, the existing structure refuses to apply the 'marginalised groups' criterion... This isnt ok.. parminder > > Mike > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society > representation on Brazil meeting committees > > Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil > meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination > Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This > email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > > > [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees > > *Date: * > > > > Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 > > *From: * > > > > Ian Peter > > *Reply-To: * > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ,"Ian Peter" > > > *To: * > > > > > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many > thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in > this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very > talented list of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for > HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call > for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, > Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , > and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No > nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the > volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly > talented field and making decisions on final candidates was > subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo > (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting > Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be > controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the > candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such > factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and > constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising > our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number > of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for > Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will > bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern > to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is > a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy > of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit > evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the > United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and > Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of > an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, > online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin*is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is > conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced > authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has > been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group > on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience > includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in > Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and > Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of > Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the > development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She > has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy > issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy > for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based > in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin*is one of the pioneers in computer communications and > the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades > network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end > protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and > contributes to several associations and working groups related to > Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet > awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from > Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book > on computer networks.Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a > strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > *Adam Peake*is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up > activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). > Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment > and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert > on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services > and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for > Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the > United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on > Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel*works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project > Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media > reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and > distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on > Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property > Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American > Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law > degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor > in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by > DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote > Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different > countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote > attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 01:48:00 2014 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:48:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: Greetings, Congrats to *High Level Committee* Jovan Kurbalija, Stephanie Perrin and Louis Pouzin *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* Adam Peake and Marilia Maciel Sincerely ------- *Asif Kabani* *Director* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Skype: kabaniasif* 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 15 January 2014 07:31, Ian Peter wrote: > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo > Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin > Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We > have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie > is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the > ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last > year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > > *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 01:53:36 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:23:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5CE84AA2-E269-43BF-B7BF-CF259848E4E1@hserus.net> +1 and I in particular wish M. Pouzin well. --srs (iPad) > On 15-Jan-2014, at 12:18, Kabani wrote: > > Greetings, > > Congrats to > > High Level Committee > > Jovan Kurbalija, Stephanie Perrin and Louis Pouzin > > Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > Adam Peake and Marilia Maciel > > Sincerely > > > ------- > Asif Kabani > Director > > Skype: kabaniasif > > 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 15 January 2014 07:31, Ian Peter wrote: >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration >> >> High Level Committee >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. >> >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. >> >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 02:11:15 2014 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:11:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: +1 for all and particulary for Louis *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2014/1/15 Ian Peter > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo > Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin > Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We > have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie > is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the > ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last > year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > > *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 02:16:02 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:16:02 +0600 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: Heartiest congratulations to all *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 cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net On 15 January 2014 13:11, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > +1 for all and particulary for Louis > > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > 2014/1/15 Ian Peter > >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil >> Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks >> to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this >> collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list >> of names for consideration >> >> *High Level Committee* >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC >> and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for >> nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best >> Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and >> including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations >> were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists >> some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers >> who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and >> making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant >> challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo >> Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin >> Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. >> We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our >> criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, >> advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular >> was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very >> strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations >> and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and >> advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues >> of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is >> a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in >> international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he >> established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of >> Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of >> successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved >> into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and >> lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United >> States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main >> areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international >> Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and >> diplomatic law. >> >> *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy >> and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting >> doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie >> is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the >> ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last >> year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian >> Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director >> of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as >> Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for >> the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has >> worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues >> internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, >> the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the >> Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network >> in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, >> later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several >> associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has >> received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the >> Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and >> has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a >> founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance >> discussions. >> >> *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on >> telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities >> for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been >> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of >> the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and >> deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, >> and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on >> telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and >> Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at >> the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the >> Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and >> also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the >> Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura >> Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes >> intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She >> also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related >> Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). >> Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal >> University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of >> Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity >> Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a >> member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals >> from different countries who have joined together with the concern to >> enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 02:20:24 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:20:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Message-ID: <3945462262920547661@unknownmsgid> Congrats to those who made the list. Regards Remmy Sent from my Windows Phone -----Original Message----- From: "Kabani" Sent: 15/01/2014 07:49 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "Ian Peter" Subject: Re: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Greetings, Congrats to High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija, Stephanie Perrin and Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake and Marilia Maciel Sincerely ------- Asif Kabani Director Skype: kabaniasif 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 15 January 2014 07:31, Ian Peter wrote: I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 qshatti at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 02:22:49 2014 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:22:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: Congratulation to our selected colleagues and thanks to the selection committee on their good job. Good choice of CS Reps. Wish them all the best. Qusai AlShatto On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Ian Peter wrote: > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo > Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin > Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We > have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie > is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the > ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last > year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > > *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 15 03:38:18 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:38:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Hi Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! Bill On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration > > High Level Committee > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 04:56:49 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:56:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1. Thank you nomcom for the great assignments you just concluded. The nominees congratulations. Wishing you all the best. Please, speak also for the developing Countries and Marginalized Groups of the World. Thank you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jan 15, 2014 9:38 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! > > Bill > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo > Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin > Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We > have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie > is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the > ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last > year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > > *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 05:20:04 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:20:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 Message-ID: FYI. www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 06:29:59 2014 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:29:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've been following the Free Press strategyto cope with that challenge to neutrality. A very good text by Carol Rossini reflecting on the actions of "our FCC" here in Brazil towards "communication services" in the country can be very enlightening to assess FP's strategy. Regards Diego On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > FYI, > > > http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow > > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder and Principal, DIGILEXIS > http://www.digilexis.com > m.chango at digilexis.com > twitter.com/digilexis > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > Skype: digilexis > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 06:50:47 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:20:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AD6387-4301-4029-ABF0-68E571980746@hserus.net> That net neutrality legislation was always in trouble - overbroad and driven by an activist rather than industry aware view of neutrality. Essentially, a lot of the wording people were pushing for was very likely to make even required and non discriminatory filtering of content such as for spam, viruses or general security illegal [and in fact network neutrality appeared largely in arguments I remember from a few years back where some civil society groups running mailing lists mismanaged those lists, leading to email being received by users unsolicited and causing their lists to be at least briefly blocked] A lot of the potential overreach has been removed but the FTC has still been left in charge of enforcing true neutrality. I would say the ruling is not all negative and solely focused on a loss of free speech as some of the more alarmist articles make it out to be. This is from a previous such case Comcast v FCC, in 2010 - http://www.circleid.com/posts/comcast_vs_the_fcc_a_reply_to_susan_crawfords_article/ --srs (iPad) > On 15-Jan-2014, at 16:59, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > I've been following the Free Press strategy to cope with that challenge to neutrality. > A very good text by Carol Rossini reflecting on the actions of "our FCC" here in Brazil towards "communication services" in the country can be very enlightening to assess FP's strategy. > Regards > Diego > > >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> FYI, >> >> http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow >> >> >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> Founder and Principal, DIGILEXIS >> http://www.digilexis.com >> m.chango at digilexis.com >> twitter.com/digilexis >> twitter.com/dig_mawaki >> Skype: digilexis >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 07:10:06 2014 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:10:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: As a departing MAG member, I would like to thank all my colleagues from Civil Society who supported me and nominated me for the MAG membership and allowed me to work with such wonderful team of people. It was indeed a wonderful experience especially with the knowledge and experience I have gained from all present and past MAG members as well as IGC members. I hope that I have contributed positively to the MAG & IGF during my tenure as a MAG member representing civil society. I look forward to continue my engagement in the IGF process, IGC activities and CS work. My heartfelt wishes to all my returning MAG colleagues from IGC in continuing their wonderful work and congratulation to the all new CS MAG members wishing them all the success in carrying their tasks. Godbless you and wish you all the best. Qusai AlShatti On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > FYI. > www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 15 08:58:21 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:58:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <278EACDD-AF48-4708-A53D-5B0B4896631E@gmail.com> Quasai Thanks much for your years of service on the MAG, much appreciated. Best, Bill On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > As a departing MAG member, I would like to thank all my colleagues from Civil Society who supported me and nominated me for the MAG membership and allowed me to work with such wonderful team of people. It was indeed a wonderful experience especially with the knowledge and experience I have gained from all present and past MAG members as well as IGC members. I hope that I have contributed positively to the MAG & IGF during my tenure as a MAG member representing civil society. I look forward to continue my engagement in the IGF process, IGC activities and CS work. > > My heartfelt wishes to all my returning MAG colleagues from IGC in continuing their wonderful work and congratulation to the all new CS MAG members wishing them all the success in carrying their tasks. > > Godbless you and wish you all the best. > > Qusai AlShatti > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > FYI. > www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Wed Jan 15 09:10:00 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:10:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: +1 in particular OF Course for Louis POUZIN and Stephanie PERRIN Marie nothing else than an old practitioner of HR and ITC, in particular private life and personal data PS Could some one transfer this e mail to Stéphanie on behalf of me? Le 15 janv. 2014 à 08:11, Baudouin SCHOMBE a écrit : > +1 for all and particulary for Louis > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC > COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC > COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > 2014/1/15 Ian Peter > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration > > High Level Committee > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 09:10:48 2014 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:40:48 +0430 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Qusai, Let me join my colleagues in appreciating your service for years in the MAG. Your contributions were very valuable and it was my pleasure to serve together with you from when and until I did. I wish you continued participation in the IGF process and congratulate your leadership in evolving the ArabIGF. Take care and stay safe! On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > As a departing MAG member, I would like to thank all my colleagues from > Civil Society who supported me and nominated me for the MAG membership and > allowed me to work with such wonderful team of people. It was indeed a > wonderful experience especially with the knowledge and experience I have > gained from all present and past MAG members as well as IGC members. I hope > that I have contributed positively to the MAG & IGF during my tenure as a > MAG member representing civil society. I look forward to continue my > engagement in the IGF process, IGC activities and CS work. > > My heartfelt wishes to all my returning MAG colleagues from IGC in > continuing their wonderful work and congratulation to the all new CS MAG > members wishing them all the success in carrying their tasks. > > Godbless you and wish you all the best. > > Qusai AlShatti > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >> FYI. >> www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> >> +234 8027510179 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 09:52:41 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:52:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello and congratulations to all those who have selected for the MAG 2014/1/15 Sonigitu Ekpe > FYI. > www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Jan 15 10:21:51 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:21:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear IGC, First, I would also like to echo with others thanking the outgoing CS members of the MAG for their services and dedication. We owe you a lot! Now, I also like to thank you for the continued support for my own MAG membership renewed again, for the third, and likely the last term. I will do my best to serve for the best interest of the global Civil Society, to keep true multi-stakeholder work of the MAG and also to improve the IGF as a whole. Here's my quick finding of the outgoing MAG members: Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai Mr. Ataho, Collins Ms. del Castilho, Angelic Mr. Dengo, Manuel Mr. Disspain, Chris Ms. Ebenmelu, Nkiru Mr. Echeberría, Raúl Ms. Fell, Lucinda Ms. Hassan, Ayesha Mr. Iqbal, Qadir Zafar Ms. Kelly, Sanja Ms. Kultamaa, Mervi Mr. Musi, Ala Mr. Ostrowski, Igor Mr. Olufuye, Jimson Mr. Philippot, Jean Paul Mr. Quaynor, Nii Mr. Samakande, Felix And these are the new 2014 MAG members just announced: • Ms. Ali Husain Castilho, Angelic Caroline • Ms. Andersdotter, Amelia • Mr. Bhatia, Virat • Mr. Boukadoum, Mourad • Ms. Byun, Soonjoung • Ms. Caballero, María Victoria Romero • Ms. Cade, Marilyn • Mr. Ene, Emesibe Sergius • Mr. Gjorgjinski, Ljupco Jivan • Mr. Lee, Xiaodong • Mr. Maurer, Andrew • Mr. Giacomo, Mazzone • Mr. Milashevsky, Igor • Mr. Nelson, Michael • Ms. Okutani, Izumi • Mr. Shlegel, Robert • Mr. Yao, Noel • Ms. Yilmaz, Filiz Finally, these are the incumbents: • Ms. Aguerre, Carolina • Mr. Aizu, Izumi • Ms. Alexander, Fiona • Mr. Amessinou, Kossi • Ms. Bommelaer, Constance • Mr. Brueggeman, Jeff • Ms. Cambronero, Fatima • Mr. Carvell, Mark • Ms. Cavalli, Olga del Carmen • Ms. Chalmers, Susan • Ms. Chaturvedi, Subi • Mr. Chen, Hongbing • Ms. Cretu, Veronica • Ms. Das, Ankhi • Mr. Drake, William • Mr. Elgamal, Hossam • Mr. Esmat, Baher • Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette • Mr. Filip, Ondřej • Mr. Guo Liang • Mr. Major, Peter • Ms. Mangal, Anju • Ms. Morenets, Yuliya • Mr. Mustala, Tero • Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian • Ms. Neves, Ana • Ms. Okite, Judith • Mr. Pedraza-Barrios, Ricardo • Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir • Mr. Rendek, Paul • Mr. Ryan, Patrick • Ms. Seltzer, Wendy • Mr. Soboutipour, Shahram • Mr. Spiller, Thomas • Mr. Wilson, Paul • Ms. Zachariah, Desiree All the best for the 2014 members, my colleagues. izumi 2014/1/15 Baudouin Schombe > Hello and congratulations to all those who have selected for the MAG > > > 2014/1/15 Sonigitu Ekpe > >> FYI. >> www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> >> +234 8027510179 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Jan 15 10:25:58 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:25:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1. Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. izumi 2014/1/15 William Drake > Hi > > Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! > > Bill > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo > Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin > Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We > have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie > is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the > ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last > year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > > *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 11:15:01 2014 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:15:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F3E144-A271-48AB-A726-F36D36CE0F3D@gmail.com> All the beat! Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 15/01/2014, a las 10:21, Izumi AIZU escribió: > > Dear IGC, > > First, I would also like to echo with others thanking the outgoing CS members > of the MAG for their services and dedication. We owe you a lot! > > Now, I also like to thank you for the continued support for my own MAG membership > renewed again, for the third, and likely the last term. I will do my best to serve for the > best interest of the global Civil Society, to keep true multi-stakeholder work of the > MAG and also to improve the IGF as a whole. > > Here's my quick finding of the outgoing MAG members: > > Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > Mr. Ataho, Collins > Ms. del Castilho, Angelic > Mr. Dengo, Manuel > Mr. Disspain, Chris > Ms. Ebenmelu, Nkiru > Mr. Echeberría, Raúl > Ms. Fell, Lucinda > Ms. Hassan, Ayesha > Mr. Iqbal, Qadir Zafar > Ms. Kelly, Sanja > Ms. Kultamaa, Mervi > Mr. Musi, Ala > Mr. Ostrowski, Igor > Mr. Olufuye, Jimson > Mr. Philippot, Jean Paul > Mr. Quaynor, Nii > Mr. Samakande, Felix > > > And these are the new 2014 MAG members just announced: > > • Ms. Ali Husain Castilho, Angelic Caroline > • Ms. Andersdotter, Amelia > • Mr. Bhatia, Virat > • Mr. Boukadoum, Mourad > • Ms. Byun, Soonjoung > • Ms. Caballero, María Victoria Romero > • Ms. Cade, Marilyn > • Mr. Ene, Emesibe Sergius > • Mr. Gjorgjinski, Ljupco Jivan > • Mr. Lee, Xiaodong > • Mr. Maurer, Andrew > • Mr. Giacomo, Mazzone > • Mr. Milashevsky, Igor > • Mr. Nelson, Michael > • Ms. Okutani, Izumi > • Mr. Shlegel, Robert > • Mr. Yao, Noel > • Ms. Yilmaz, Filiz > > > Finally, these are the incumbents: > > • Ms. Aguerre, Carolina > • Mr. Aizu, Izumi > • Ms. Alexander, Fiona > • Mr. Amessinou, Kossi > • Ms. Bommelaer, Constance > • Mr. Brueggeman, Jeff > • Ms. Cambronero, Fatima > • Mr. Carvell, Mark > • Ms. Cavalli, Olga del Carmen > • Ms. Chalmers, Susan > • Ms. Chaturvedi, Subi > • Mr. Chen, Hongbing > • Ms. Cretu, Veronica > • Ms. Das, Ankhi > • Mr. Drake, William > • Mr. Elgamal, Hossam > • Mr. Esmat, Baher > • Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette > • Mr. Filip, Ondřej > • Mr. Guo Liang > • Mr. Major, Peter > • Ms. Mangal, Anju > • Ms. Morenets, Yuliya > • Mr. Mustala, Tero > • Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian > • Ms. Neves, Ana > • Ms. Okite, Judith > • Mr. Pedraza-Barrios, Ricardo > • Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir > • Mr. Rendek, Paul > • Mr. Ryan, Patrick > • Ms. Seltzer, Wendy > • Mr. Soboutipour, Shahram > • Mr. Spiller, Thomas > • Mr. Wilson, Paul > • Ms. Zachariah, Desiree > > > All the best for the 2014 members, my colleagues. > > izumi > > > > > 2014/1/15 Baudouin Schombe >> Hello and congratulations to all those who have selected for the MAG >> >> >> 2014/1/15 Sonigitu Ekpe >>> FYI. >>> www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 >>> >>> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>> >>> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>> >>> +234 8027510179 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC >> COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC >> COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC >> >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> skype : b.schombe >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 11:54:59 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:54:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations to all selected members --new and old-- and my best wishes for a productive and successful tenure. Thank you to outgoing members. mc On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear IGC, > > First, I would also like to echo with others thanking the outgoing CS > members > of the MAG for their services and dedication. We owe you a lot! > > Now, I also like to thank you for the continued support for my own MAG > membership > renewed again, for the third, and likely the last term. I will do my > best to serve for the > best interest of the global Civil Society, to keep true multi-stakeholder > work of the > MAG and also to improve the IGF as a whole. > > Here's my quick finding of the outgoing MAG members: > > Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > Mr. Ataho, Collins > Ms. del Castilho, Angelic > Mr. Dengo, Manuel > Mr. Disspain, Chris > Ms. Ebenmelu, Nkiru > Mr. Echeberría, Raúl > Ms. Fell, Lucinda > Ms. Hassan, Ayesha > Mr. Iqbal, Qadir Zafar > Ms. Kelly, Sanja > Ms. Kultamaa, Mervi > Mr. Musi, Ala > Mr. Ostrowski, Igor > Mr. Olufuye, Jimson > Mr. Philippot, Jean Paul > Mr. Quaynor, Nii > Mr. Samakande, Felix > > > And these are the new 2014 MAG members just announced: > > • Ms. Ali Husain Castilho, Angelic Caroline > • Ms. Andersdotter, Amelia > • Mr. Bhatia, Virat > • Mr. Boukadoum, Mourad > • Ms. Byun, Soonjoung > • Ms. Caballero, María Victoria Romero > • Ms. Cade, Marilyn > • Mr. Ene, Emesibe Sergius > • Mr. Gjorgjinski, Ljupco Jivan > • Mr. Lee, Xiaodong > • Mr. Maurer, Andrew > • Mr. Giacomo, Mazzone > • Mr. Milashevsky, Igor > • Mr. Nelson, Michael > • Ms. Okutani, Izumi > • Mr. Shlegel, Robert > • Mr. Yao, Noel > • Ms. Yilmaz, Filiz > > > Finally, these are the incumbents: > > • Ms. Aguerre, Carolina > • Mr. Aizu, Izumi > • Ms. Alexander, Fiona > • Mr. Amessinou, Kossi > • Ms. Bommelaer, Constance > • Mr. Brueggeman, Jeff > • Ms. Cambronero, Fatima > • Mr. Carvell, Mark > • Ms. Cavalli, Olga del Carmen > • Ms. Chalmers, Susan > • Ms. Chaturvedi, Subi > • Mr. Chen, Hongbing > • Ms. Cretu, Veronica > • Ms. Das, Ankhi > • Mr. Drake, William > • Mr. Elgamal, Hossam > • Mr. Esmat, Baher > • Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette > • Mr. Filip, Ondřej > • Mr. Guo Liang > • Mr. Major, Peter > • Ms. Mangal, Anju > • Ms. Morenets, Yuliya > • Mr. Mustala, Tero > • Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian > • Ms. Neves, Ana > • Ms. Okite, Judith > • Mr. Pedraza-Barrios, Ricardo > • Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir > • Mr. Rendek, Paul > • Mr. Ryan, Patrick > • Ms. Seltzer, Wendy > • Mr. Soboutipour, Shahram > • Mr. Spiller, Thomas > • Mr. Wilson, Paul > • Ms. Zachariah, Desiree > > > All the best for the 2014 members, my colleagues. > > izumi > > > > > 2014/1/15 Baudouin Schombe > >> Hello and congratulations to all those who have selected for the MAG >> >> >> 2014/1/15 Sonigitu Ekpe >> >>> FYI. >>> www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 >>> >>> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>> >>> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>> >>> +234 8027510179 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* >> *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* >> >> *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* >> >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> skype : b.schombe >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 12:40:12 2014 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:40:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1389807612.42150.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi and other fellows, Congratulations to you and other friends who are on board to Serve as MAG 2014. Thanks for sharing the statics analysis. I would also add more: 18 members out of 55 are new.  With reference to the nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom for the renewal of term is 100% accepted, while there we do not see any appreciation about the new candidates nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom, APrIGF & Diplo Foundation. With Best Wishes, Sincerely, Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Izumi AIZU >To: governance ; Baudouin Schombe >Cc: Sonigitu Ekpe >Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 20:21 >Subject: Re: [governance] MAG 2014 > > > >Dear IGC, > > >First, I would also like to echo with others thanking the outgoing CS members >of the MAG for their services and dedication. We owe you a lot! > > >Now, I also like to thank you for the continued support for my own MAG membership >renewed again, for the third, and likely the last term.  I will do my best to serve for the >best interest of the global Civil Society, to keep true multi-stakeholder work of the >MAG and also to improve the IGF as a whole. > > >Here's my quick finding of the outgoing MAG members: > >Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >Mr. Ataho, Collins >Ms. del Castilho, Angelic >Mr. Dengo, Manuel >Mr. Disspain, Chris >Ms. Ebenmelu, Nkiru >Mr. Echeberría, Raúl >Ms. Fell, Lucinda >Ms. Hassan, Ayesha >Mr. Iqbal, Qadir Zafar >Ms. Kelly, Sanja >Ms. Kultamaa, Mervi >Mr. Musi, Ala >Mr. Ostrowski, Igor >Mr. Olufuye, Jimson >Mr. Philippot, Jean Paul >Mr. Quaynor, Nii >Mr. Samakande, Felix > > > > > >And these are the new 2014 MAG members just announced: >• Ms. Ali Husain Castilho, Angelic Caroline >• Ms. Andersdotter, Amelia >• Mr. Bhatia, Virat  >• Mr. Boukadoum, Mourad >• Ms. Byun, Soonjoung >• Ms. Caballero, María Victoria Romero  >• Ms. Cade, Marilyn >• Mr. Ene, Emesibe Sergius >• Mr. Gjorgjinski, Ljupco Jivan  >• Mr. Lee, Xiaodong >• Mr. Maurer, Andrew >• Mr.  Giacomo, Mazzone >• Mr. Milashevsky, Igor >• Mr. Nelson, Michael >• Ms. Okutani, Izumi >• Mr. Shlegel, Robert  >• Mr. Yao, Noel >• Ms. Yilmaz, Filiz > > > > > >Finally, these are the incumbents: > >• Ms. Aguerre, Carolina >• Mr. Aizu, Izumi >• Ms. Alexander, Fiona >• Mr. Amessinou, Kossi >• Ms. Bommelaer, Constance >• Mr. Brueggeman, Jeff >• Ms. Cambronero, Fatima >• Mr. Carvell, Mark >• Ms. Cavalli, Olga del Carmen >• Ms. Chalmers, Susan >• Ms. Chaturvedi, Subi >• Mr. Chen, Hongbing >• Ms. Cretu, Veronica >• Ms. Das, Ankhi >• Mr. Drake, William >• Mr. Elgamal, Hossam >• Mr. Esmat, Baher >• Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette >• Mr. Filip, Ondřej >• Mr. Guo Liang >• Mr. Major, Peter >• Ms. Mangal, Anju >• Ms. Morenets, Yuliya >• Mr. Mustala, Tero >• Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian >• Ms. Neves, Ana >• Ms. Okite, Judith >• Mr. Pedraza-Barrios, Ricardo >• Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir >• Mr. Rendek, Paul >• Mr. Ryan, Patrick >• Ms. Seltzer, Wendy >• Mr. Soboutipour, Shahram >• Mr. Spiller, Thomas >• Mr. Wilson, Paul >• Ms. Zachariah, Desiree > > > > >All the best for the 2014 members, my colleagues. > > >izumi > > > > > > > >2014/1/15 Baudouin Schombe > >Hello and congratulations to all those who have selected for the MAG >> >> >> >> >>2014/1/15 Sonigitu Ekpe >> >>FYI. >>>www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1527-mag-2014 >>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>>+234 8027510179 >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >>REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC >>COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC >>COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC >> >>Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 >>email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com >>skype                 : b.schombe >>blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >>  >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > >-- >                     >> Izumi Aizu << >Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,           >Japan >www.anr.org > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 12:46:30 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:46:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: <1389807612.42150.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1389807612.42150.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Adding my voice to the hearty congrats to all MAG members. 2014 will see increased challenges in the IG arena Here's to wishing us all a successful one Nnenna On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Izumi and other fellows, > > Congratulations to you and other friends who are on board to Serve as MAG > 2014. > > Thanks for sharing the statics analysis. > I would also add more: > 18 members out of 55 are new. > With reference to the nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom for the renewal > of term is 100% accepted, while there we do not see any appreciation about > the new candidates nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom, APrIGF & Diplo > Foundation. > > With Best Wishes, > > Sincerely, > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ------------------------------ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 13:02:19 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2014: Request for Public Input Message-ID: *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: < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >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.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 13:05:53 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:05:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2014: Request for Public Input Message-ID: *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: < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >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.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 15:19:15 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:19:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Message-ID: I join Izumi and all others in thanking the NomCom for taking up a difficult task and completing this process in such a good manner. I am thankful for the trust and will give my very best to carry out the tasks ahead. Rolling up my sleeves here and looking forward to the next steps and to our discussions :) Marília On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > +1. > > Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. > > izumi > > > 2014/1/15 William Drake > >> Hi >> >> Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! >> >> Bill >> >> On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil >> Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks >> to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this >> collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list >> of names for consideration >> >> *High Level Committee* >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC >> and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for >> nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best >> Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and >> including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations >> were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists >> some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers >> who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and >> making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant >> challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo >> Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin >> Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. >> We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our >> criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, >> advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular >> was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very >> strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations >> and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and >> advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues >> of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is >> a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in >> international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he >> established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of >> Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of >> successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved >> into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and >> lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United >> States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main >> areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international >> Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and >> diplomatic law. >> >> *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy >> and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting >> doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie >> is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the >> ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last >> year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian >> Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director >> of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as >> Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for >> the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has >> worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues >> internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, >> the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the >> Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network >> in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, >> later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several >> associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has >> received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the >> Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and >> has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a >> founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance >> discussions. >> >> *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on >> telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities >> for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been >> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of >> the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and >> deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, >> and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on >> telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and >> Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at >> the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the >> Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and >> also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the >> Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura >> Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes >> intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She >> also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related >> Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). >> Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal >> University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of >> Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity >> Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a >> member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals >> from different countries who have joined together with the concern to >> enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> 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 > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 15 15:48:30 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:48:30 +1100 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1389807612.42150.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <32B40F3A8AD24D729DC51CD22DED71AF@Toshiba> Yes, good to say many of our current members maintained, but the new members are a little disappointing (although I am personally pleased to see EU Pirate Party MP Amelia Andersdotter included) And thanks to Qusai for his long term involvement on our behalf which ended with this renewal. But none of the new nominations from Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, and APC – all of whom nominated separately – were included. At the time, Sala and Norbert commenced a series of discussions with other groups, aiming at getting together a common slate of candidates. That did not succeed within this timeframe, although there was some cross-endorsement. So various civil society groups nominated separately and the lack of a common set of candidates probably did not help. Since then the groups have started to work together on nominations to other bodies, which I think is a step in the right direction. But that effort needs some substantial work, and some changes, if it is to go forward. But perhaps this might be an additional catalyst towards co-operative efforts. Ian Peter From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:46 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] MAG 2014 Adding my voice to the hearty congrats to all MAG members. 2014 will see increased challenges in the IG arena Here's to wishing us all a successful one Nnenna On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Izumi and other fellows, Congratulations to you and other friends who are on board to Serve as MAG 2014. Thanks for sharing the statics analysis. I would also add more: 18 members out of 55 are new. With reference to the nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom for the renewal of term is 100% accepted, while there we do not see any appreciation about the new candidates nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom, APrIGF & Diplo Foundation. With Best Wishes, Sincerely, Imran Ahmed Shah ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 16:24:28 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:24:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG 2014 In-Reply-To: <32B40F3A8AD24D729DC51CD22DED71AF@Toshiba> References: <1389807612.42150.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <32B40F3A8AD24D729DC51CD22DED71AF@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi Ian I very much hope so too and CS must learn the relevant lessons as well. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes, good to say many of our current members maintained, but the new > members are a little disappointing (although I am personally pleased to see > EU Pirate Party MP Amelia Andersdotter included) And thanks to Qusai for > his long term involvement on our behalf which ended with this renewal. > > But none of the new nominations from Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, and APC – all > of whom nominated separately – were included. At the time, Sala and Norbert > commenced a series of discussions with other groups, aiming at getting > together a common slate of candidates. That did not succeed within this > timeframe, although there was some cross-endorsement. So various civil > society groups nominated separately and the lack of a common set of > candidates probably did not help. > > Since then the groups have started to work together on nominations to > other bodies, which I think is a step in the right direction. But that > effort needs some substantial work, and some changes, if it is to go > forward. But perhaps this might be an additional catalyst towards > co-operative efforts. > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:46 AM > *To:* Governance > *Subject:* Re: [governance] MAG 2014 > > Adding my voice to the hearty congrats to all MAG members. > 2014 will see increased challenges in the IG arena > > Here's to wishing us all a successful one > > Nnenna > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Dear Izumi and other fellows, >> >> Congratulations to you and other friends who are on board to Serve as MAG >> 2014. >> >> Thanks for sharing the statics analysis. >> I would also add more: >> 18 members out of 55 are new. >> With reference to the nominations of Bestbits, IGC Nomcom for the >> renewal of term is 100% accepted, while there we do not see any >> appreciation about the new candidates nominations of Bestbits, IGC >> Nomcom, APrIGF & Diplo Foundation. >> >> With Best Wishes, >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014< http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Wed Jan 15 22:47:09 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:47:09 +0700 Subject: [governance] Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules... In-Reply-To: <42AD6387-4301-4029-ABF0-68E571980746@hserus.net> References: <42AD6387-4301-4029-ABF0-68E571980746@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52D7563D.7010807@gmx.net> On 1/15/2014 6:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That net neutrality legislation was always in trouble - overbroad and > driven by an activist rather than industry aware view of neutrality. > > Essentially, a lot of the wording people were pushing for was very > likely to make even required and non discriminatory filtering of > content such as for spam, viruses or general security illegal > [and in fact network neutrality appeared largely in arguments I > remember from a few years back where some civil society groups running > mailing lists mismanaged those lists, leading to email being received > by users unsolicited and causing their lists to be at least briefly > blocked]... The American Libraries Association, another "activist's" voice, with mismanaged mailing lists? ALA News ALA troubled by court’s net neutrality decision http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2014/01/ala-troubled-court-s-net-neutrality-decision Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 16 01:52:55 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:22:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules... In-Reply-To: <52D7563D.7010807@gmx.net> References: <42AD6387-4301-4029-ABF0-68E571980746@hserus.net> <52D7563D.7010807@gmx.net> Message-ID: This was one specific activist group I had in mind, not the ALA. I was pointing out a specific pitfall in most of this noise around NN. --srs (iPad) > On 16-Jan-2014, at 9:17, Norbert Klein wrote: > > >> On 1/15/2014 6:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> That net neutrality legislation was always in trouble - overbroad and driven by an activist rather than industry aware view of neutrality. >> >> Essentially, a lot of the wording people were pushing for was very likely to make even required and non discriminatory filtering of content such as for spam, viruses or general security illegal >> [and in fact network neutrality appeared largely in arguments I remember from a few years back where some civil society groups running mailing lists mismanaged those lists, leading to email being received by users unsolicited and causing their lists to be at least briefly blocked]... > > > The American Libraries Association, another "activist's" voice, with mismanaged mailing lists? > > ALA News > ALA troubled by court’s net neutrality decision > > http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2014/01/ala-troubled-court-s-net-neutrality-decision > > Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 16 07:30:41 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:30:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Co-Coordinator Elections Candidates (Update) Message-ID: Dear All, Warm Greetings! Trusting that you have all had a very good holiday. Following calls in June, 2013 seeking nominations of candidates for the co-coordinator position to replace me and in light of the recent resignation of Norbert Bollow, this is to advise that we will be facilitating the elections to elect two co-coordinators as both positions are vacant as at December 31, 2013. I am only acting in this position until the conclusion of the elections. Traditionally, post elections, we have often received complaints that people were not happy with the slate of candidates, however, given the multiple notices and opportunities given to the community to offer yourselves or nominate people, I believe there is no room to complain against the slate. I have great pleasure in announcing the candidates and they are: 1) Deirdre Williams 2) Imran Ahmed Shah 3) Mawaki Chango Their candidate profiles including their biographies, disclosure of interest and vision for the IGC can be viewed here: http://igcaucus.org/election-2014-2016-nominees We have been getting ready to facilitate elections and you should expect the ballot papers in your mailboxes in the not too distant future. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those the candidates and wish them well. We had one candidate who was nominated offlist but withdrew. With every best wish, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Outgoing co-coordinator) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Jan 16 07:48:17 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:48:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Co-Coordinator Elections Candidates (Update) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sala. Best regards Antonio Medina Gomez 2014/1/16 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > Warm Greetings! Trusting that you have all had a very good holiday. > Following calls in June, 2013 seeking nominations of candidates for the > co-coordinator position to replace me and in light of the recent > resignation of Norbert Bollow, this is to advise that we will be > facilitating the elections to elect two co-coordinators as both positions > are vacant as at December 31, 2013. > > I am only acting in this position until the conclusion of the elections. > Traditionally, post elections, we have often received complaints that > people were not happy with the slate of candidates, however, given the > multiple notices and opportunities given to the community to offer > yourselves or nominate people, I believe there is no room to complain > against the slate. > > I have great pleasure in announcing the candidates and they are: > > 1) Deirdre Williams > 2) Imran Ahmed Shah > 3) Mawaki Chango > > Their candidate profiles including their biographies, disclosure of > interest and vision for the IGC can be viewed here: > http://igcaucus.org/election-2014-2016-nominees > > We have been getting ready to facilitate elections and you should expect > the ballot papers in your mailboxes in the not too distant future. I would > like to take the opportunity to thank all those the candidates and wish > them well. > > We had one candidate who was nominated offlist but withdrew. > > With every best wish, > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > (Outgoing co-coordinator) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 16 09:00:10 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> Message-ID: <20140116150010.36d2b206@quill> Dear all After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start woking on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM... I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in editing http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes and pages that you create, linking them from there. Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to civil society perspectives). I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are reasonable will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about the objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might be the best approach to make several proposals on the basis of several possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be defined. In any case, let's get going! The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC mailing list) have requested to be Cc'd: Richard Hill Daniel Iga Mwesigwa Birgitta Jónsdóttir Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would > > very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the > > Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from > > such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing > > how outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input > > processes such as these. > > In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling > substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand > the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the > Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the > substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable. > > If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a failure > before it has even started. > > But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!! > > I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which > various committees are populated are significant only if those > shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and > accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's > output document not having worthwhile content. > > I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others have > made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it is > simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection processes. > > Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive > Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a > proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the > substantive discourse”? > > I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document. > > Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a > consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the > editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching > IGC consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach IGC > consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a > proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a > sign-on statement. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 16 10:06:06 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:06:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140116150010.36d2b206@quill> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> <20140116150010.36d2b206@quill> Message-ID: <20140116160606.54b00adf@quill> In order to kick off the discussion, here's an initial, quite rough, draft of one possible idea: Greetings, Norbert --snip-------------------------------------------------------------- This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the various perspectives on this are. If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling substantive inputs could include the following: * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various perspectives. * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive inputs into a comprehensiove report. * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive contributions. the working group will draft a report on requirements and concerns, noting which points require further clarification. * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that their contribution is reflected appropriately. * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have submitted are processed. * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the various perspectives on this are. * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open points. * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. --snap-------------------------------------------------------------- Am Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Dear all > > After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start woking > on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes for the > Brazil MSM... > > I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in > editing > http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes > and pages that you create, linking them from there. > > Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in > which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as > acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to civil > society perspectives). > > I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are reasonable > will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about the > objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might be the > best approach to make several proposals on the basis of several > possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be defined. > > In any case, let's get going! > > The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC mailing > list) have requested to be Cc'd: > > Richard Hill > Daniel Iga Mwesigwa > Birgitta Jónsdóttir > > Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > Am Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would > > > very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the > > > Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from > > > such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing > > > how outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from > > > input processes such as these. > > > > In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling > > substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand > > the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the > > Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the > > substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable. > > > > If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a > > failure before it has even started. > > > > But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!! > > > > I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which > > various committees are populated are significant only if those > > shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and > > accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's > > output document not having worthwhile content. > > > > I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others > > have made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it > > is simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection > > processes. > > > > Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive > > Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a > > proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the > > substantive discourse”? > > > > I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document. > > > > Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a > > consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the > > editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching > > IGC consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach > > IGC consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a > > proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a > > sign-on statement. > > > > 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 rhill at hill-a.ch Thu Jan 16 10:13:47 2014 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:13:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140116160606.54b00adf@quill> Message-ID: OK for me, and thank you very much for your great thoughts and hard work. Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: jeudi, 16. janvier 2014 16:06 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: rhill; Daniel IGA MWESIGWA; Birgitta Jónsdóttir > Subject: Re: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil > MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) > > > In order to kick off the discussion, here's an initial, quite rough, > draft of one possible idea: > > Greetings, > Norbert > > --snip-------------------------------------------------------------- > This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes for > handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > the Future of Internet Governance. > > According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus > on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for > the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” > > Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it > may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering > requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles > and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from > various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling > substantive inputs could include the following: > > * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input > documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various > perspectives. > > * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive > inputs into a comprehensiove report. > > * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive > contributions. the working group will draft a report on > requirements and concerns, noting which points require further > clarification. > > * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that > their contribution is reflected appropriately. > > * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have > submitted are processed. > > * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify what > are the open points that need to be resolved before the report can > be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the various > perspectives on this are. > > * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that > need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. > > * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions > attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open > points. > > * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution > proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. > > --snap-------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Am Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > Dear all > > > > After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start woking > > on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes for the > > Brazil MSM... > > > > I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in > > editing > > > http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes > > and pages that you create, linking them from there. > > > > Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in > > which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as > > acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to civil > > society perspectives). > > > > I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are reasonable > > will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about the > > objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might be the > > best approach to make several proposals on the basis of several > > possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be defined. > > > > In any case, let's get going! > > > > The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC mailing > > list) have requested to be Cc'd: > > > > Richard Hill > > Daniel Iga Mwesigwa > > Birgitta Jónsdóttir > > > > Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > Am Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100 > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > > > [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would > > > > very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the > > > > Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from > > > > such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing > > > > how outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from > > > > input processes such as these. > > > > > > In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling > > > substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand > > > the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the > > > Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the > > > substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable. > > > > > > If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a > > > failure before it has even started. > > > > > > But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!! > > > > > > I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which > > > various committees are populated are significant only if those > > > shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and > > > accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's > > > output document not having worthwhile content. > > > > > > I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others > > > have made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it > > > is simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection > > > processes. > > > > > > Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive > > > Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a > > > proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the > > > substantive discourse”? > > > > > > I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document. > > > > > > Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a > > > consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the > > > editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching > > > IGC consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach > > > IGC consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a > > > proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a > > > sign-on statement. > > > > > > 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 antoinekantiza at hotmail.com Thu Jan 16 11:23:28 2014 From: antoinekantiza at hotmail.com (Antoine Kantiza) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:23:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reasons of thinking that the selection process of nominees for representing the civil society at GMMIG of Sao Paulo is ongoing In-Reply-To: <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org>,<00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I begin by congratulating the first round of talented selected persons for representing the Civil society for preparing the upcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting of Internet Governance in the Meeting of Sao Paulo in Brazil. However I quote five reasons of thinking that the selection of nominees for representing Civil society at GMMIG is ongoing: 1°) Only one candidate has been elected in each Committee: Jovan Kurbalija for the High Level Committee and Marilia Maciel for the Executive Multistakeholder Committee as it is displayed by Virginia (Ginger) Paque on the website: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/diplo-community-submission-to-cs-coordination-group-brazil-ms-mee‏ where the whole list of applicants was highlighted since Tuesday, on January 7th, 2014 -sixteen applicants for HLC and twelve applicants for EMC- meaning that others selected persons are the outsiders elected for theirs proved know-how in Internet Governance 2°) It has been asserted in the Call for Nomination that four persons will be nominated for the High Level Committee and two persons for the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, so the HLC should be completed by at least by one person. 3°) The developing countries are under-represented among the selection of CS Coordination Group who don’t live the true reality of Internet Governance in enclosed developing countries where the democratization of Internet access is not only denied by the high cost of Internet- one dollar by half past an hour of Internet connection where the average income of inhabitants is less than two dollars by day- but also by many other matters such as the highest digital illiteracy as well as the little level of integrity and the lack professionalism among Internet stakeholders, the deficit of basic ICT infrastructures in rural area or the monopoly position of closed club of Internet providers what I suggest to be analyzed in 2014 IGF in order to struggle against digital divide inside developing countries, also it has been promised that amid the criteria of selection of candidates “includes perspectives/representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes” 4°) The selection of CS Coordination Group is not yet revealed by Virginia (Ginger) Paque who disclosed the list of the nominees of civil society on http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/diplo-community-submission-to-cs-coordination-group-brazil-ms-me and who asserted that she “will post the names of the chosen civil society representatives as soon as it is finalised and sent to 1Net and the LOG (Local Organizing Group)” when the current selections of the CS Coordination Group has been revealed by a non voting chair who recognized that “some aspects of these selections will be controversial” 5°) The selection process for the applicants who will advocate for transparency in Internet Governance process should prove that the selection of candidates has been done in transparency by proclaiming the selected persons classified by scores given by CS Coordination Group in accordance to the prior criteria of selection announced in the call for nominations. Best Prof Antoine KANTIZA, Master UTICEF,- Webmaster à la Radio-Télévision Nationale du Burundi http://www.burundi-quotidien.net & http://www.rtnb.bi/ Editor of @RTNBurundi's content Représentant légal de l'ASBL PLEAD " PROMOTION DE L'EDUCATION A DISTANCE" BP 5175 BUJUMBURA-BURUNDI Skype ID: antoine.kantiza Twitter ID: @antoinekantiza http://promotioneducationdistance.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/antoine-kantiza/25/603/446 From: gurstein at gmail.com To: jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:50:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees I think that it is worth pointing out that this selection, whatever the evident merits of the individuals selected, was made by a self-appointed group representing a self-selected set of civil society organizations (the CS:CC) from which the Community Informatics network which has been active in civil society (and other matters) concerning the Internet since 2001; was, without cause, explanation or justification, excluded. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil CommitteesDate: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100From: Ian Peter Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Ian Peter" To: I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for considerationHigh Level CommitteeJovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis PouzinExecutive Multistakeholder CommitteeAdam Peake Marilia MacielBiographical details appear below.The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration.The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge.The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair.We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected.Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair)BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILSDr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation.Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada.Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions.Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus.Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 16 14:49:07 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:49:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reasons of thinking that the selection process of nominees for representing the civil society at GMMIG of Sao Paulo is ongoing In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org>,<00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I have responded privately to Prof Kantiza on these matters to address some of the factual misunderstandings (rather than post to about 8 mailing lists). Ian Peter From: Antoine Kantiza Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:23 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus ; 'Jeremy Malcolm' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Virgina Paque ; 2014IGF at intgovforum.org Cc: discuss at 1net.org ; isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org ; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org ; chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org ; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org ; parminder at itforchange.net ; wjdrake at gmail.com ; joana at varonferraz.com ; bnnrcbd at gmail.com ; ian.peter at ianpeter.com Subject: [governance] Reasons of thinking that the selection process of nominees for representing the civil society at GMMIG of Sao Paulo is ongoing Dear all, I begin by congratulating the first round of talented selected persons for representing the Civil society for preparing the upcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting of Internet Governance in the Meeting of Sao Paulo in Brazil. However I quote five reasons of thinking that the selection of nominees for representing Civil society at GMMIG is ongoing: 1°) Only one candidate has been elected in each Committee: Jovan Kurbalija for the High Level Committee and Marilia Maciel for the Executive Multistakeholder Committee as it is displayed by Virginia (Ginger) Paque on the website: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/diplo-community-submission-to-cs-coordination-group-brazil-ms-mee‏ where the whole list of applicants was highlighted since Tuesday, on January 7th, 2014 -sixteen applicants for HLC and twelve applicants for EMC- meaning that others selected persons are the outsiders elected for theirs proved know-how in Internet Governance 2°) It has been asserted in the Call for Nomination that four persons will be nominated for the High Level Committee and two persons for the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, so the HLC should be completed by at least by one person. 3°) The developing countries are under-represented among the selection of CS Coordination Group who don’t live the true reality of Internet Governance in enclosed developing countries where the democratization of Internet access is not only denied by the high cost of Internet- one dollar by half past an hour of Internet connection where the average income of inhabitants is less than two dollars by day- but also by many other matters such as the highest digital illiteracy as well as the little level of integrity and the lack professionalism among Internet stakeholders, the deficit of basic ICT infrastructures in rural area or the monopoly position of closed club of Internet providers what I suggest to be analyzed in 2014 IGF in order to struggle against digital divide inside developing countries, also it has been promised that amid the criteria of selection of candidates “includes perspectives/representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes” 4°) The selection of CS Coordination Group is not yet revealed by Virginia (Ginger) Paque who disclosed the list of the nominees of civil society on http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/diplo-community-submission-to-cs-coordination-group-brazil-ms-me and who asserted that she “will post the names of the chosen civil society representatives as soon as it is finalised and sent to 1Net and the LOG (Local Organizing Group)” when the current selections of the CS Coordination Group has been revealed by a non voting chair who recognized that “some aspects of these selections will be controversial” 5°) The selection process for the applicants who will advocate for transparency in Internet Governance process should prove that the selection of candidates has been done in transparency by proclaiming the selected persons classified by scores given by CS Coordination Group in accordance to the prior criteria of selection announced in the call for nominations. Best Prof Antoine KANTIZA, Master UTICEF,- Webmaster à la Radio-Télévision Nationale du Burundi http://www.burundi-quotidien.net & http://www.rtnb.bi/ Editor of @RTNBurundi's content Représentant légal de l'ASBL PLEAD " PROMOTION DE L'EDUCATION A DISTANCE" BP 5175 BUJUMBURA-BURUNDI Skype ID: antoine.kantiza Twitter ID: @antoinekantiza http://promotioneducationdistance.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/antoine-kantiza/25/603/446 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gurstein at gmail.com To: jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:50:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees I think that it is worth pointing out that this selection, whatever the evident merits of the individuals selected, was made by a self-appointed group representing a self-selected set of civil society organizations (the CS:CC) from which the Community Informatics network which has been active in civil society (and other matters) concerning the Internet since 2001; was, without cause, explanation or justification, excluded. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 From: Ian Peter mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Ian Peter" mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com To: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 16 14:55:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:55:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: <882FAF59-9E2A-4C8C-BDAD-36962CDEBEFC@gmail.com> Congrats to all! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 14, 2014, at 10:31 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration > > High Level Committee > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Jan 16 15:00:41 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:00:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <882FAF59-9E2A-4C8C-BDAD-36962CDEBEFC@gmail.com> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <882FAF59-9E2A-4C8C-BDAD-36962CDEBEFC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D83A69.5080009@eff.org> Congrats all. Thrilled with the selection of Stephanie Perrin! On 01/16/2014 11:55 AM, Carolina wrote: > Congrats to all! > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 14, 2014, at 10:31 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration >> >> High Level Committee >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. >> >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. >> >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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: 555 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Jan 16 20:23:55 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:53:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users In-Reply-To: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> References: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> Excerpt "In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred." (Is the rest of the world, the digital colony of California:-) ?).. Google's journey from 'see no evil ...' to 'arrogant and immoral'... is part explained by that immortal quote of Acton ... power tends to corrupt and absolute power (as Google practically enjoys today in many digital spaces) corrupts absolutely... regards, Guru source - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/16/google-uk-courts-privacy-breach-iphone-safari Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users High court rules that group of more than 100 alleging invasion of privacy through Safari 'hack' can have case heard in UK Charles Arthur The Guardian , Thursday 16 January 2014 14.22 GMT Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users. The case will now go ahead in the UK, where a group of more than 100 people are suing Google, alleging that it misused private information, breached confidence and breached the 1998 Data Protection Act. Google said it will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the case does not meet the standards required to be heard by the court. The search company had applied for a declaration that the case doesn't meet the criteria to be heard by the court, which relate to a "hack" that it used on Apple's Safari browser to install advertising cookies. But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's high court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try their claims. "I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said in the ruling . The group, which calls itself Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuses Google of invading their privacy after bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements. Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, who had campaigned under the name Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, said she was "delighted" that Google will have to answer questions in open court. “We want to know how Google came to ignore user preferences to track us online; how did they get around Apple’s program settings – they have said it was accidental, but how do you accidentally interfere with someone else’s program? We want to know how long they have done this for, what they’ve done with our private data, how much they have made from this, and why they keep flouting privacy laws? This case is about protecting the rights of all internet users who use a company that is virtually a monopoly but seems intent on ignoring their right to privacy.” In the judgment, Tugendhat rebuffed Google's argument that the information was not private because it was anonymous. "It would not collect and collate information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value," he said. In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred. In the US, Google has already paid a $22.5m (£14.4m fine to the US Federal Trade Commission and a further $17m to a number of US states for the breach, which meant that Safari users' web activity could be tracked even where the browser settings said they should not be. Google said in a statement: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.” The US class action case, brought in Delaware, was struck down on the basis that the plaintiff there could not prove harm, and had not shown a loss of money or property. However the US does not have an equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act or other privacy legislation which is being asserted in the UK case. The "hack" was discovered by Jonathan Mayer, a university researcher, late in 2011. Google admitted that it had carried it out in February 2012. The "hack" circumvented protections built into Safari on the iPhone and iPad and Mac desktop computers and meant that people could see messages indicating whether their associates in Google "Circles" on its Google+ social network had clicked on ads – but it also let Google and other advertisers see which websites people landed on. By January 2013, more than 70 Britons had contacted lawyers to seek redress . But in August they complained that it was trying to deny that UK laws were applicable to their use. Its lawyers also described their claims as "not serious", suggesting that peoples' browsing habits were not protected as "personal information" even where they related to sexuality or personal health. A group spokesman said: "The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge." Tugendhat said: "The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Jan 17 03:34:20 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:34:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users In-Reply-To: <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> References: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Guru! (It will take far more for our status-quoers to feel what is so outrageous here!) JC Le 17 janv. 2014 à 02:23, Guru गुरु a écrit : > Excerpt > > "In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred." > > (Is the rest of the world, the digital colony of California:-) ?).. Google's journey from 'see no evil ...' to 'arrogant and immoral'... is part explained by that immortal quote of Acton ... power tends to corrupt and absolute power (as Google practically enjoys today in many digital spaces) corrupts absolutely... > > regards, > Guru > > source - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/16/google-uk-courts-privacy-breach-iphone-safari > > Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users > > High court rules that group of more than 100 alleging invasion of privacy through Safari 'hack' can have case heard in UK > Charles Arthur > > The Guardian , Thursday 16 January 2014 14.22 GMT > > Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users. > > The case will now go ahead in the UK, where a group of more than 100 people are suing Google, alleging that it misused private information, breached confidence and breached the 1998 Data Protection Act. > > Google said it will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the case does not meet the standards required to be heard by the court. > > The search company had applied for a declaration that the case doesn't meet the criteria to be heard by the court, which relate to a "hack" that it used on Apple's Safari browser to install advertising cookies. > > But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's high court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try their claims. "I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said in the ruling . > > The group, which calls itself Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuses Google of invading their privacy after bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements. > > Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, who had campaigned under the name Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, said she was "delighted" that Google will have to answer questions in open court. > > “We want to know how Google came to ignore user preferences to track us online; how did they get around Apple’s program settings – they have said it was accidental, but how do you accidentally interfere with someone else’s program? We want to know how long they have done this for, what they’ve done with our private data, how much they have made from this, and why they keep flouting privacy laws? This case is about protecting the rights of all internet users who use a company that is virtually a monopoly but seems intent on ignoring their right to privacy.” > > In the judgment, Tugendhat rebuffed Google's argument that the information was not private because it was anonymous. "It would not collect and collate information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value," he said. > > In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred. > > In the US, Google has already paid a $22.5m (£14.4m fine to the US Federal Trade Commission and a further $17m to a number of US states for the breach, which meant that Safari users' web activity could be tracked even where the browser settings said they should not be. > > Google said in a statement: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.” > > The US class action case, brought in Delaware, was struck down on the basis that the plaintiff there could not prove harm, and had not shown a loss of money or property. However the US does not have an equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act or other privacy legislation which is being asserted in the UK case. > > The "hack" was discovered by Jonathan Mayer, a university researcher, late in 2011. Google admitted that it had carried it out in February 2012. The "hack" circumvented protections built into Safari on the iPhone and iPad and Mac desktop computers and meant that people could see messages indicating whether their associates in Google "Circles" on its Google+ social network had clicked on ads – but it also let Google and other advertisers see which websites people landed on. > > By January 2013, more than 70 Britons had contacted lawyers to seek redress . But in August they complained that it was trying to deny that UK laws were applicable to their use. Its lawyers also described their claims as "not serious", suggesting that peoples' browsing habits were not protected as "personal information" even where they related to sexuality or personal health. > > A group spokesman said: "The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge." Tugendhat said: "The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims." > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Fri Jan 17 05:06:30 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:06:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users In-Reply-To: <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> References: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <3FC11411-0819-4572-9C27-171C8E47EF27@noos.fr> Many thanks Guru, The case in the way you described it is crystal clear and will be a big help in Europe so to show once again that the European directive of 95 applies to foreign services when using means on its territory for their personal data processing. Also that our Data Privacy laws aims at protecting individuals not only in case of financial lost but also in case of unfair data processing with regard to privacy.... Thanks again, Marie Le 17 janv. 2014 à 02:23, Guru गुरु a écrit : > Excerpt > > "In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred." > > (Is the rest of the world, the digital colony of California:-) ?).. Google's journey from 'see no evil ...' to 'arrogant and immoral'... is part explained by that immortal quote of Acton ... power tends to corrupt and absolute power (as Google practically enjoys today in many digital spaces) corrupts absolutely... > > regards, > Guru > > source - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/16/google-uk-courts-privacy-breach-iphone-safari > > Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users > > High court rules that group of more than 100 alleging invasion of privacy through Safari 'hack' can have case heard in UK > Charles Arthur > > The Guardian , Thursday 16 January 2014 14.22 GMT > > Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users. > > The case will now go ahead in the UK, where a group of more than 100 people are suing Google, alleging that it misused private information, breached confidence and breached the 1998 Data Protection Act. > > Google said it will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the case does not meet the standards required to be heard by the court. > > The search company had applied for a declaration that the case doesn't meet the criteria to be heard by the court, which relate to a "hack" that it used on Apple's Safari browser to install advertising cookies. > > But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's high court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try their claims. "I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said in the ruling . > > The group, which calls itself Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuses Google of invading their privacy after bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements. > > Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, who had campaigned under the name Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, said she was "delighted" that Google will have to answer questions in open court. > > “We want to know how Google came to ignore user preferences to track us online; how did they get around Apple’s program settings – they have said it was accidental, but how do you accidentally interfere with someone else’s program? We want to know how long they have done this for, what they’ve done with our private data, how much they have made from this, and why they keep flouting privacy laws? This case is about protecting the rights of all internet users who use a company that is virtually a monopoly but seems intent on ignoring their right to privacy.” > > In the judgment, Tugendhat rebuffed Google's argument that the information was not private because it was anonymous. "It would not collect and collate information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value," he said. > > In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred. > > In the US, Google has already paid a $22.5m (£14.4m fine to the US Federal Trade Commission and a further $17m to a number of US states for the breach, which meant that Safari users' web activity could be tracked even where the browser settings said they should not be. > > Google said in a statement: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.” > > The US class action case, brought in Delaware, was struck down on the basis that the plaintiff there could not prove harm, and had not shown a loss of money or property. However the US does not have an equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act or other privacy legislation which is being asserted in the UK case. > > The "hack" was discovered by Jonathan Mayer, a university researcher, late in 2011. Google admitted that it had carried it out in February 2012. The "hack" circumvented protections built into Safari on the iPhone and iPad and Mac desktop computers and meant that people could see messages indicating whether their associates in Google "Circles" on its Google+ social network had clicked on ads – but it also let Google and other advertisers see which websites people landed on. > > By January 2013, more than 70 Britons had contacted lawyers to seek redress . But in August they complained that it was trying to deny that UK laws were applicable to their use. Its lawyers also described their claims as "not serious", suggesting that peoples' browsing habits were not protected as "personal information" even where they related to sexuality or personal health. > > A group spokesman said: "The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge." Tugendhat said: "The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims." > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Jan 17 05:46:30 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:16:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users Message-ID: Quite a slippery slope though. The same extra territoriality can be leveraged by say China looking to get information about a dissident who then gets shot or arrested. Or Thailand to prosecute someone who criticizes their emperor. Or.. I appreciate the deep hatred some here have for Google, or rather I don't appreciate it as much as that previous sentence seems to imply, but I do hope you think the implications of this move through before rushing off to bash google or make stupid wisecracks about the digital Republic of California or whatever that term was. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Marie GEORGES" To: , "Guru गुरु" Cc: "Best Bits" Subject: [governance] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 3:36 PM Many thanks Guru, The case in the way you described it is crystal clear and will be a big help in Europe so to show once again that the European directive of 95 applies to foreign services when using means on its territory for their personal data processing. Also that our Data Privacy laws aims at protecting individuals not only in case of financial lost but also in case of unfair data processing with regard to privacy.... Thanks again, Marie Le 17 janv. 2014 à 02:23, Guru गुरु a écrit : > Excerpt > > "In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred." > > (Is the rest of the world, the digital colony of California:-) ?).. Google's journey from 'see no evil ...' to 'arrogant and immoral'... is part explained by that immortal quote of Acton ... power tends to corrupt and absolute power (as Google practically enjoys today in many digital spaces) corrupts absolutely... > > regards, > Guru > > source - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/16/google-uk-courts-privacy-breach-iphone-safari > > Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users > > High court rules that group of more than 100 alleging invasion of privacy through Safari 'hack' can have case heard in UK > Charles Arthur > > The Guardian , Thursday 16 January 2014 14.22 GMT > > Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users. > > The case will now go ahead in the UK, where a group of more than 100 people are suing Google, alleging that it misused private information, breached confidence and breached the 1998 Data Protection Act. > > Google said it will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the case does not meet the standards required to be heard by the court. > > The search company had applied for a declaration that the case doesn't meet the criteria to be heard by the court, which relate to a "hack" that it used on Apple's Safari browser to install advertising cookies. > > But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's high court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try their claims. "I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said in the ruling . > > The group, which calls itself Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuses Google of invading their privacy after bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements. > > Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, who had campaigned under the name Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, said she was "delighted" that Google will have to answer questions in open court. > > “We want to know how Google came to ignore user preferences to track us online; how did they get around Apple’s program settings – they have said it was accidental, but how do you accidentally interfere with someone else’s program? We want to know how long they have done this for, what they’ve done with our private data, how much they have made from this, and why they keep flouting privacy laws? This case is about protecting the rights of all internet users who use a company that is virtually a monopoly but seems intent on ignoring their right to privacy.” > > In the judgment, Tugendhat rebuffed Google's argument that the information was not private because it was anonymous. "It would not collect and collate information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value," he said. > > In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred. > > In the US, Google has already paid a $22.5m (£14.4m fine to the US Federal Trade Commission and a further $17m to a number of US states for the breach, which meant that Safari users' web activity could be tracked even where the browser settings said they should not be. > > Google said in a statement: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.” > > The US class action case, brought in Delaware, was struck down on the basis that the plaintiff there could not prove harm, and had not shown a loss of money or property. However the US does not have an equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act or other privacy legislation which is being asserted in the UK case. > > The "hack" was discovered by Jonathan Mayer, a university researcher, late in 2011. Google admitted that it had carried it out in February 2012. The "hack" circumvented protections built into Safari on the iPhone and iPad and Mac desktop computers and meant that people could see messages indicating whether their associates in Google "Circles" on its Google+ social network had clicked on ads – but it also let Google and other advertisers see which websites people landed on. > > By January 2013, more than 70 Britons had contacted lawyers to seek redress . But in August they complained that it was trying to deny that UK laws were applicable to their use. Its lawyers also described their claims as "not serious", suggesting that peoples' browsing habits were not protected as "personal information" even where they related to sexuality or personal health. > > A group spokesman said: "The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge." Tugendhat said: "The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims." > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 06:31:56 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05596A5E-69F5-4186-99B2-3B0E400C004E@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I join Izumi and all others in thanking the NomCom for taking up a difficult task and completing this process in such a good manner. > I am thankful for the trust and will give my very best to carry out the tasks ahead. Rolling up my sleeves here and looking forward to the next steps and to our discussions :) > Marília > > Very much share Marilia's sentiments -- thanks NomCom, thanks for your trust. Adam > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > +1. > > Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. > > izumi > > > 2014/1/15 William Drake > Hi > > Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! > > Bill > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration >> >> High Level Committee >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. >> >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. >> >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > >> 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 > > > > > -- > 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 sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Fri Jan 17 12:04:04 2014 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:04:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] EuroSSIG - Call for application out now Message-ID: <014801cf13a6$20a90380$61fb0a80$@hoferichter@freenet.de> +++Call for application+++ The next European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) will take place from 27 July – 2 August 2014 in Meissen Germany. We are now accepting applications until 15 April 2014, both from students and individuals working in the private sector, in government or in civil society groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic academic degree or relevant practical experiences. The 2013 Summer School offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . The full course fee is 1.000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the lecture programme: * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory” * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter” * boat trip on the river Elbe * free WiFi access * all teaching material We can offer a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). Individuals from developing countries have the opportunity to apply for the global fellowship programme. If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications by using the online application form on the website. _____________________________________________________________________ s a n d r a h o f e r i c h t e r management and communication European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) medienstadt leipzig e.v. / netcom institute pf 650 107 d-04189 leipzig fon: +49.341.301 28 27 fax: +49.341.945 60 11 mobile: +49.163.380 87 85 info at hoferichter.eu www.euro-ssig.eu This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intendet recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 13:47:06 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:47:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <05596A5E-69F5-4186-99B2-3B0E400C004E@glocom.ac.jp> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> <05596A5E-69F5-4186-99B2-3B0E400C004E@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Congratulations to both the selected nominees and the NomCom! m. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I join Izumi and all others in thanking the NomCom for taking up a > difficult task and completing this process in such a good manner. > > I am thankful for the trust and will give my very best to carry out the > tasks ahead. Rolling up my sleeves here and looking forward to the next > steps and to our discussions :) > > Marília > > > > > > Very much share Marilia's sentiments -- thanks NomCom, thanks for your > trust. > > Adam > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > +1. > > > > Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2014/1/15 William Drake > > Hi > > > > Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! > > > > Bill > > > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > >> > >> High Level Committee > >> > >> Jovan Kurbalija > >> Stephanie Perrin > >> Louis Pouzin > >> > >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee > >> > >> Adam Peake > >> Marilia Maciel > >> > >> Biographical details appear below. > >> > >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > >> > >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > >> > >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) > and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > >> > >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. > We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > >> > >> Biographical details are below. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > >> > >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > >> > >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > >> > >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > >> > >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. > Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy > on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for > the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > >> > >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > >> > >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > *********************************************** > > William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > > www.williamdrake.org > > *********************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 17 23:06:57 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:36:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched In-Reply-To: <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> On Friday 17 January 2014 07:30 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > > Michael, > > I fully agree that there should be diversity of perspectives/concerns > present in the SC, and that the current CS representatives do not > formally represent all these. However, only 5 people (CS reps in the > SC) - whoever they would be (me, you or anyone else) - can't possibly > formally represent the full diversity of the CS; we would need dozens > of representatives. What is important is that they care about > diversity of perspectives/concerns and make sure to bring these into > SC discussions at all points. Your detailed input about the > Declaration are much appreciated and this is a good example of what > should be seriously taken into consideration also, and there are many > other relevant documents and concerns as well (as you rightly > mentioned marginalised group, persons with disabilities, and others). > > So let's make sure that the 5 CS reps. pick up the diversity from 1Net > list and other CS discussion fora, and bring this diversity to the SC > table. I will do my best, and I am sure the others will as well. > Vlada You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the repsof the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do you think that it is a fake group... Denying political space and role to different groups, and the corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out would need to be done as part of a political process. One can discuss that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) representation of what is normally considered civil society interests than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people (civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and let those who consider it is political represent them... The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they claim they will pick up and push with equal force.. Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good and nice people... Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends from outside civil society learn the culture. regards , parminder > Best, > > Vlada > > PS. As I mentioned several times: all these are only my personal > opinions, not on behalf of CS members in SC or anyone else. I am not a > spoke-person, I am just currently the loudest one :) > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 16 January 2014 00:41 > *To:* 'Vladimir Radunovic' > *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* RE: Selection RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR > meeting site launched > > Vlada, > > Thank you for your comments and let me reply inline... > > *From:*Vladimir Radunovic [mailto:vladar at diplomacy.edu] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:50 AM > *To:* 'michael gurstein' > *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* Selection RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR > meeting site launched > > Michael, > > I have missed that question with a purpose - there have been lots of > discussions on that, and in this thread I wanted to raise some other > issues for discussion as well. > > */[MG>] yes, there has been some discussion on the issues that I've > raised but so far no one from the 1net Steering Committee, 1net, the > groups self-selecting for the Steering Committee, or the groups > self-nominating for the self-selecting groups for the Nominating > Committee have provided any rationale or argument in support of what I > think is an unsupportable position.../* > > I owe you my views on the issue of SC legitimacy as well, nevertheless: > > While I am not acquainted with the details of the selection process, I > am aware from discussions that it was not perfect. > > */[MG>] If you aren't aware of the selection process, that suggests > that there may not have been one... basically it was a few mates > sitting in a circle and saying who from our circle shall we get to > front this one/* > > *//* > > Yet I do find it a solid base for improvements for future occasions, > as for once civil society managed to come up with something to further > work on. > > */[MG>] no, a self-selected group purporting to represent Civil > Society but in fact only representing primarily themselves came up > with something again primarily to serve themselves/* > > *//* > > Selecting the civil society representatives is a complex issue, I am > aware, as one can't use classic "representational democracy" model -- > > */[MG>] agree/* > > *//* > > instead, we need to focus on searching for persons with and > credibility, experience, skills and knowledge that hopefully have > strong support among the CS groups = > > */[MG>] and who apart from these self-selected groups determined that > this particular group of individuals had the degree of /*integrity and > credibility, experience, skills and knowledge */and only they had the > required characteristics... certainly being self-selected from the > self-selected CS groups they had strong support but since the circle > was closed it is hard to accept or know whether they had strong > support from anyone else or whether anyone else could have been found > who had more support or better filled the criteria/* > > *//* > > those persons we believe will fairly represent diversity of views > that exist in CS. > > */[MG>] what possible basis do you have for that belief... I see no > participation from Indigenous Peoples, people with Disabilities, poor > people's organizations, actual Internet users (and non-users) as > opposed to those talking about the use of the Internet by > others---those are the people of whom CS overwhelming consists and I > see no basis to believe that the current self-appointed group in any > way "represents" their views among other in the "diversity that exist > in CS".../* > > *//* > > My confidence in this selection process came from my confidence in the > nominating committee members and their integrity and credibility. > > */[MG>] I'm delighted that you have confidence in those who chose you > and in the self-selected group of which your own organization is an > active member... and the other of those organizations who equally > chose their own members for these positions, but so far you have given > no arguments why anyone else beyond that circle should share your > confidence and in the absence of any reasonable arguments you have > further undermined any reason for anyone beyond your narrow circle(s) > to accept this/* > > *//* > > If they made mistakes as you say, I believe that - and doom me for > that or call me naive - it was not with mal intention and it is > something they and all of us can work on in future to improve. In all > the circumstances I do think that the SC is legitimate, though > admitting the selection process needs improvements. With all this, I > do hope that also you believe in my personal integrity and credibility > to represent you and diversity of CS views in the SC; if not, I will > give my best to show that you should - and please help me do that by > both criticizing and supporting my takes. > > */[MG>] Vlada, I don't know you directly and thus I can have no > opinion on your integrity etc./* > > *//* > > */But let me be quite direct.../* > > *//* > > */The Community Informatics community recently and in the context of > the Brazil meeting published a /**/Declaration/* > */. That > Declaration has now been signed on to by dozens of organizations > globally including the Indigenous ICT Task Force, Telecommunities > Canada, the First Mile Institute (New Mexico), Women be Free (Benin), > the global P2P Foundation, the International Alliance on Information > for All, the Open Technology Institute (USA), the RCM Participatory > Foundation (Italy) and over 100 individuals including the Founding > Director of Siyafunda (South Africa), the head of the Global Community > Network Initiative (Austria), the UNESCO Chair at the University of > Strasbourg, a leading official of the Broadband Commission, and a very > very broad band of grassroots ICT activists, academics and just plain > users from all parts of the world. /* > > *//* > > */However, from a fairly close observation not one of those currently > active in IG CS and certainly none of those who have been currently > nominated for positions representing either civil society or academia > have chosen to endorse this Declaration./* > > *//* > > */Of course, you and your colleagues in these positions can choose to > endorse whatever you like but since none of you have chosen to endorse > the Declaration of the Community Informatics community don't purport > to say that you are fully representative of civil society of which the > CI community is most definitely a part (unless you and your colleagues > choose a definition where only those who you folks designate as CS can > in fact be CS) or that you represent the diversity of CS positions. > That is totally and manifestly incorrect./* > > *//* > > */The Declaration points to issues and norms that we feel need to be > expressed in the context of the Brazil meeting and from what I have > seen I have absolutely no confidence that unless we are given an > opportunity to be represented at all levels in the planning of the > event that many of those issues will not in fact be presented for > discussion and the voices of those whose lived reality underlie those > issues will have no opportunity to be heard./* > > *//* > > */I must say further that I find this to be particularly outrageous > since the Declaration's concerns for the distributional effects of the > Internet so closely mirror the actions of President Rousseff and her > party in Brazil having undertaken social and distributional programs > which have moved 10s of millions of her fellow citizens out of > poverty. The concerns of the Community Informatics community in > ensuring that the Internet is an element in similarly ensuring the > widest possible distribution of economic benefits and similarly in > advocating measures to overcome any inequalities that might be arising > as a result of the differential distribution of benefits arising from > the transformations that the Internet is bringing about need to be > heard as part of the upcoming meeting. And I have absolutely no > confidence or reason to have confidence that any of those currently > representing "civil society" will in fact present those concerns among > others./* > > *//* > > */Vlada, I acknowledge and have considerable respect for the > individuals and organizations and for the concerns that they represent > of which apparently you are now the spokesperson. I wonder what might > be the motivation to not accord my colleagues and I and the concerns > that we are presenting the same degree of acknowledgement and respect./* > > *//* > > */Mike/* > > Best! > > Vlada > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 15 January 2014 17:04 > *To:* 'Vladimir Radunovic'; discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site > launched > > Vlada, > > It seems to me that you have missed the first and most significant > question which needs to be asked i.e. on what basis do you derive the > legitimacy to undertake any of the tasks as indicated in your > subsequent questions. > > Contra Milton, you cannot simply pull this legitimacy and authority to > act out of the air, assume it by some form of divine right, seize it > through the de facto occupancy of some type of electronic space or > other similarly illegitimate contrivance. > > Your legitimacy has in this instance, to come from the identification > of a constituency who, through a set of agreed upon procedures have > granted you that legitimacy to act on their behalf so long as your > actions are consistent with those procedures. In this case, you (or > rather your nominators) have misidentified your constituency (as being > representative of all of CS as a stakeholder group), failed to > identify a set of appropriate procedures on the basis of which your > legitimacy could be granted (appropriately transparent and accountable > selection procedures for your individual nominations) and only > function on the basis of an external body (1net) having accorded you > legitimacy even though they themselves quite evidently lack any form > of legitimacy as per the above ... > > Mike > > *From:*discuss-bounces at 1net.org > [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On > Behalf Of *Vladimir Radunovic > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:07 PM > *To:* discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched > > Dear colleagues, > > ahead of the first (and constitutive) meeting of the 1Net Steering > committee in the following days, and thinking about the substantial > questions related to 1Net (many been discussed already on this list), > please share your views on the following: > > 1.How do you see the role and potentials of 1Net? What should be its > task in a wider IG context? > > (Taking into account the discussed views that it might have been > started with particular intentions and following particular interests, > but now providing (or hoping) that 1Net would be able to resist these > and gradually establish its legitimacy in the wider community) > > 2.What should be the role of 1Net towards major IG fora - IGF, ICANN, > ITU, and other? > > 3.What relation should 1Net have with the Brazil meeting? > > The Brazilian organisers suggested in a press release (and as Anja > clarified: 1Net has not been consulted on nor has decided on any of > these, so we can only understand this as suggestions) several roles > for 1Net, including the "partnership" in organising the Brazil > event... Should 1Net be a partner, and if so how should it contribute > to Brazil meeting (and how it should not)? > > I am sure all the members of the Steering Committee would appreciate > variety of views on these. > > Thank you! > > Best, > > Vlada > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 18 03:59:37 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:59:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140116160606.54b00adf@quill> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> <20140111120045.47af0820@quill> <20140116150010.36d2b206@quill> <20140116160606.54b00adf@quill> Message-ID: <20140118095937.41a21cf7@quill> Since the text below obviously wasn't provocative enough to get a discussion started, let me ask a few questions... These questions refer to “political tone” and “technical precision”. With “political tone” I mean that when textual contributions are invited from any source, some of them will express concerns about actions or potential actions of other stakeholders; those texts will be somewhere on the scale from unjustifiable verbal attacks and insults over candid and direct expression of legitimate concerns to traditional diplomatic language. With “technical precision” I mean that contributions on topics related tot he Internet will be somewhere on the scale from being based on explicit factually wrong assertions about the Internet over expressions of legitimate concerns in layman terms which are not exactly wrong but difficult to interpret precisely in the context of how the Internet actually works to precise and technically accurate problem statements and solution proposals. Now when inputs from stakeholders are intended to contribute to the formulation of a reasonably consistent output document, there is a need to apply some kind of uniform standard in regard to both of these dimensions. This leads to the following questions: 1. Which standards should be adopted in regard to political tone and technical precision? 2. How is it decided whether proposed text fulfills the requirements in regard to these two dimensions? 3. How to empower people to express their concerns in a way that conforms to the expectations in regard to political tone and technical precision? 4. How to prevent the standards on political tone and technical precision from being abused to suppress inconvenient truths? Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote: > In order to kick off the discussion, here's an initial, quite rough, > draft of one possible idea: > > Greetings, > Norbert > > --snip-------------------------------------------------------------- > This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes > for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > > According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus > on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for > the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” > > Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it > may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering > requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles > and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from > various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling > substantive inputs could include the following: > > * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input > documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various > perspectives. > > * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive > inputs into a comprehensiove report. > > * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive > contributions. the working group will draft a report on > requirements and concerns, noting which points require further > clarification. > > * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that > their contribution is reflected appropriately. > > * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have > submitted are processed. > > * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify > what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report > can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that > need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. > > * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions > attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open > points. > > * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution > proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. > > --snap-------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Am Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > Dear all > > > > After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start > > woking on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes > > for the Brazil MSM... > > > > I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in > > editing > > http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes > > and pages that you create, linking them from there. > > > > Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in > > which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as > > acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to > > civil society perspectives). > > > > I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are > > reasonable will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about > > the objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might > > be the best approach to make several proposals on the basis of > > several possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be > > defined. > > > > In any case, let's get going! > > > > The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC > > mailing list) have requested to be Cc'd: > > > > Richard Hill > > Daniel Iga Mwesigwa > > Birgitta Jónsdóttir > > > > Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jan 18 05:23:49 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:53:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) Message-ID: There is a fourth category too, when speaking about technical or policy issues, especially as you mentioned politics. Precise and technically INaccurate language that slants a topic to suit the politics of the person making whatever point it is. Suppresio veri, suggestio falsi and such. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: , "rhill" , "Daniel IGA MWESIGWA" , "BirgittaJónsdóttir" Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:29 PM Since the text below obviously wasn't provocative enough to get a discussion started, let me ask a few questions... These questions refer to “political tone” and “technical precision”. With “political tone” I mean that when textual contributions are invited from any source, some of them will express concerns about actions or potential actions of other stakeholders; those texts will be somewhere on the scale from unjustifiable verbal attacks and insults over candid and direct expression of legitimate concerns to traditional diplomatic language. With “technical precision” I mean that contributions on topics related tot he Internet will be somewhere on the scale from being based on explicit factually wrong assertions about the Internet over expressions of legitimate concerns in layman terms which are not exactly wrong but difficult to interpret precisely in the context of how the Internet actually works to precise and technically accurate problem statements and solution proposals. Now when inputs from stakeholders are intended to contribute to the formulation of a reasonably consistent output document, there is a need to apply some kind of uniform standard in regard to both of these dimensions. This leads to the following questions: 1. Which standards should be adopted in regard to political tone and technical precision? 2. How is it decided whether proposed text fulfills the requirements in regard to these two dimensions? 3. How to empower people to express their concerns in a way that conforms to the expectations in regard to political tone and technical precision? 4. How to prevent the standards on political tone and technical precision from being abused to suppress inconvenient truths? Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote: > In order to kick off the discussion, here's an initial, quite rough, > draft of one possible idea: > > Greetings, > Norbert > > --snip-------------------------------------------------------------- > This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes > for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > > According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus > on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for > the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” > > Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it > may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering > requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles > and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from > various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling > substantive inputs could include the following: > > * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input > documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various > perspectives. > > * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive > inputs into a comprehensiove report. > > * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive > contributions. the working group will draft a report on > requirements and concerns, noting which points require further > clarification. > > * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that > their contribution is reflected appropriately. > > * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have > submitted are processed. > > * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify > what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report > can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that > need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. > > * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions > attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open > points. > > * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution > proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. > > --snap-------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Am Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > Dear all > > > > After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start > > woking on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes > > for the Brazil MSM... > > > > I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in > > editing > > http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes > > and pages that you create, linking them from there. > > > > Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in > > which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as > > acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to > > civil society perspectives). > > > > I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are > > reasonable will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about > > the objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might > > be the best approach to make several proposals on the basis of > > several possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be > > defined. > > > > In any case, let's get going! > > > > The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC > > mailing list) have requested to be Cc'd: > > > > Richard Hill > > Daniel Iga Mwesigwa > > Birgitta Jónsdóttir > > > > Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sat Jan 18 09:29:37 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:59:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Obama's NSA speech: an affirmation that mass surveillance has a future Message-ID: <52DA8FD1.2030404@ITforChange.net> excerpt "The Mozilla Foundation – the internet non-profit that makes, among other things, the Firefox browser – reacted to Obama’s speech in a way that pointed to the path not taken. “Overall, the strategy seems to be to leave current intelligence processes largely intact and improve oversight to a degree,” it said in a statement. “We’d hoped for, and the internet deserves, more. Without a meaningful change of course, the internet will continue on its path toward a world of balkanization and distrust, a grave departure from its origins of openness and opportunity.” Whatever direction that path takes, Obama has reaffirmed the NSA’s largely unfettered ability to exploit it. The reality is that the limits of technology – not policy, which can be manipulated, and not law, which can be finessed – are the NSA’s most important restrictions...." end excerpt This is something for global civil society to take serious note of and respond to. And apart from responding, civil society needs to work pro-actively to end the current USG dominance which enables inter alia, such widespread surveillance. regards, Guru source - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-speech-surveillance-reforms-fight?CMP=twt_gu Barack Obama’s rhetoric in his big surveillance speech on Friday was pleasing to privacy advocates. But the substance of his proposals for the future of mass data collection amount to a gift for the National Security Agency. The battle over the future of surveillance now shifts from the White House to Capitol Hill, where Obama conceded that legislation will be necessary on practically all of his desired proposals – terrain very favorable to the NSA, and where it has a major opportunity to rebrand itself with a forthcoming leader. Obama’s remarks about the importance of privacy obscured that he has not closed any door on the world’s most powerful surveillance agency. The ones that appear closed depend on crucial details that Obama has left unresolved, even after seven months of congressional hearings , two conflicting public federal court rulings , and a voluminous report by his own surveillance advisers. Most significant is Obama’s call for the government to relinquish the collection of records of every phone call made in the United States. But it’s too soon to determine if bulk collection actually ends, or merely transfers to a private custodian on behalf of the NSA. Obama did not resolve whether a post-government collection of metadata ought to require an individualized showing of a plausible connection to terrorism, which would be determined in advance by a judge in all but exceptional cases. That’s how investigations over personal data typically work, and the reason why the laws governing them have always been about the terms under which the government can get the data in the first place. But NSA has argued, with great success, that the relevant privacy protection ought to surround when it gets to study the data – taking its access to the data for granted. The mere fact that the data will transition out of government hands is less than meets the eye. Obama conceded to NSA’s favor a point in serious dispute: that the NSA must have access to a massive pool of domestic phone data. Once that concession is made, the logical contour of a private repository for metadata storage lends itself to being comprehensive – far beyond the current amount of data each company holds before purging it. In order for metadata analysis to add any value at all, NSA has said it needs the whole “haystack” to find hidden connections to terrorism. Conceding the need for the haystack lends itself to gathering all the hay, whether at Fort Meade or by an intermediary. NSA director General Keith Alexander, Deputy AG James Cole, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Senator Patrick Leahy.National Security Agency Director General Keith Alexander, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Senator Patrick Leahy. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP But that necessity has been called into question. NSA and its allies have lately been given to a different metaphor: not of the haystack, but what NSA deputy director John C Inglis last week called an “insurance policy ”. That contention – a more intellectually honest construction – reflects that the phone data has not, as the NSA initially and forcefully misrepresented, prevented US terror attacks. The greatest counter-terrorist effect the NSA has identified through its mass phone data processing, in 12 years of existence, has been the identification of a financial transfer to a Somali affiliate of al-Qaida from San Diego. All that ought to prompt celebration at Fort Meade. Privacy advocates evidently did not persuade Obama to definitively end what is by far the most domestically controversial of all the surveillance activities disclosed by Edward Snowden. Not only will the NSA (and its allies at the office of the director of national intelligence) spend the next several weeks in part advising Obama on what a post-government, metadata custodian ought to look like, the agency will be a major player in shaping the legislation that will bring such a custodian into existence, owing to its advocates in the Senate and House intelligence committees. Congress’s default position, on a bipartisan basis, is deference to the security agencies. That isn’t to say the NSA has won. It must first withstand the USA Freedom Act , a bipartisan civil libertarian bill to end bulk collection already backed by about a quarter of legislators. If the bill passes, creating a new comprehensive metadata storehouse, or forcing telecoms to retain data for years, will be exceptionally difficult. And the standards of evidence the NSA or the FBI must meet before a judge to gain access to the records will inevitably rise, a critical civil liberties protection. Beyond the domestic metadata collection, the surveillance landscape after Obama’s speech looks remarkably clear for NSA. Obama placed no durable restriction on the mass collection of foreign citizens, merely tasking the attorney general and director of national intelligence to come up with proposals for giving foreigners abroad more privacy safeguards. Foreign leaders did somewhat better than their billions of citizens, with “allies” receiving Obama's assurance that they won’t be spied upon absent a “national security” rationale – significant caveats, and applying already to an infinitesimal fraction of the billions of communications gathered by NSA every day. Consider the following construction by Obama: “In terms of our bulk collection of [overseas] signals intelligence, US intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, cybersecurity, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion." That’s even broader than it sounds. Those already-expansive policy goals only govern the use of data, not its collection in the first place. And it sets up the tricky problem of how the NSA can determine whether any of that enormous data trove is useful without studying it in the first place. CIA director John Brennan left, talks with the director of national intelligence James Clapper before Barack Obama outlined his NSA reforms.CIA director John Brennan talks with the director of national intelligence James Clapper. Photograph: Jim WatsonAFP/Getty Images Any additional safeguards on other aspects of the NSA’s powers remain subject to a dizzying array of reviews, despite the numerous ones already performed, and which were supposed to inform White House policy. There have been reviews to determine when the NSA can tweak encryption standards; reviews to determine the institutional writ of a privacy advocate before the secret surveillance court that oversees it; reviews to determine the closure of an authority allowing the NSA to search, without a warrant, through its foreign-derived data troves for American identifying information. All these reviews provide the NSA with additional opportunities to make sure it maintains as much flexibility and power as possible. And it has another one coming up. General Keith Alexander and his deputy Inglis are both stepping down. The next director of the NSA will inherit a post-Snowden agency, and has a tremendous opportunity to attempt a public reset. While it’s too soon to tell whether Alexander's successor will seize that opportunity, Washington loves to confuse a new person in charge with an institutional overhaul. If the only thing NSA has lost so far is a PR campaign, the rematch is set to begin this spring. NSA has whined for months that the White House has not ridden to its rescue. That whine turned out to be unfounded. “We cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies” is probably the most durably significant line of Obama’s speech, and the sentence that will have the greatest resonance as a guide to the NSA’s future, especially compared to anything he said about the importance of liberty. The Mozilla Foundation – the internet non-profit that makes, among other things, the Firefox browser – reacted to Obama’s speech in a way that pointed to the path not taken. “Overall, the strategy seems to be to leave current intelligence processes largely intact and improve oversight to a degree,” it said in a statement. “We’d hoped for, and the internet deserves, more. Without a meaningful change of course, the internet will continue on its path toward a world of balkanization and distrust, a grave departure from its origins of openness and opportunity.” Whatever direction that path takes, Obama has reaffirmed the NSA’s largely unfettered ability to exploit it. The reality is that the limits of technology – not policy, which can be manipulated, and not law, which can be finessed – are the NSA’s most important restrictions. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Jan 18 12:09:50 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 07:09:50 -1000 Subject: [governance] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:06 PM, parminder wrote: > ... > You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the reps of the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do you think that it is a fake group... > > Denying political space and role to different groups, and the corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out would need to be done as part of a political process. One can discuss that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) representation of what is normally considered civil society interests than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people (civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and let those who consider it is political represent them... > > The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they claim they will pick up and push with equal force.. > > Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good and nice people... > > Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends from outside civil society learn the culture. Parminder - You do not hear me recommending that such issues be taken of the 1net list; to the contrary, I believe that the discussion of representative vs open multistakeholder models is a fundamental and important topic for discussion regarding Internet governance. However, I will also note that this list has quite a few technical folks on it, and they tend to be of analytic mindset which deconstructs, examines, hypothesizes, and test that which is proposed. In this case, the question that has been raised is "validity" of a given set of representatives per the "Representative MultiStakeholder model" Until someone can explain what makes for valid representation, it is not possible to assess the validity of any set of representatives. It is clear that any given set of representatives are going to be a subset of the possible representatives, so how does one determine which representatives are to be chosen to construct the best "representative" stakeholder group? If the "Representative MS model" is truly is a valid model (and not just a catchphrase), then should it not be possible for different folks to follow the representative MS model to choose 3, 5, or 10 representatives from a given list of names and come up with similar choices for optimum representation in each case? This is not to "technical-ize an essentially political issue"; it is simply the application of the known rational/scientific method to the problem space. The alternative is to assert that a rational method is inapplicable to representative multistakeholder selection; if that's the case, so be it, but recognize then that your laments about any given selection may fall on deaf ears (as you have given us no yardstick by which to measure validity.) Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Hopefully, they will be seen by the value (or lack thereof ;-) that they represent to the discussion, rather than the result of my "representing" (or not) others... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 18 12:56:31 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:56:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> Ah... John, If, as you say “this list has quite a few technical folks on it, and they tend to be of analytic mindset which deconstructs, examines, hypothesizes, and test that which is proposed”, then presumably they know better than anyone and particularly us non-technical artsy fartsy folks that science/knowledge proceeds not by attempting to prove positives i.e. as for example the “validity” of this or that, but rather by demonstrating the “invalidity” (falsifiability*) of this or that… So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are demonstrating that the “multistakeholder model” doesn’t provide an appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to assert that it does… If the manner in which the manifestly illegitimate “multistakeholder” selection processes have been conducted in this instance by 1net do not qualify as a “black swan**” (i.e. as a direct falsification of the validity of the approach by which various folks are attempting to bury democracy) then I have no idea what might… M *q.v. Karl Popper and “Falsifiability” as the basis of scientific knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ** Black swans: “For example, by the problem of induction , no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization , such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.” ( ^ Popper, K. R. (1994). "Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsifizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsifiability]". In Seiffert, H.; Radnitzky, G. Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. pp. 82–85. ISBN 3-423-04586-8 ) as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:10 AM To: parminder Cc: 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:06 PM, parminder wrote: ... You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the reps of the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do you think that it is a fake group... Denying political space and role to different groups, and the corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out would need to be done as part of a political process. One can discuss that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) representation of what is normally considered civil society interests than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people (civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and let those who consider it is political represent them... The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they claim they will pick up and push with equal force.. Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good and nice people... Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends from outside civil society learn the culture. Parminder - You do not hear me recommending that such issues be taken of the 1net list; to the contrary, I believe that the discussion of representative vs open multistakeholder models is a fundamental and important topic for discussion regarding Internet governance. However, I will also note that this list has quite a few technical folks on it, and they tend to be of analytic mindset which deconstructs, examines, hypothesizes, and test that which is proposed. In this case, the question that has been raised is "validity" of a given set of representatives per the "Representative MultiStakeholder model" Until someone can explain what makes for valid representation, it is not possible to assess the validity of any set of representatives. It is clear that any given set of representatives are going to be a subset of the possible representatives, so how does one determine which representatives are to be chosen to construct the best "representative" stakeholder group? If the "Representative MS model" is truly is a valid model (and not just a catchphrase), then should it not be possible for different folks to follow the representative MS model to choose 3, 5, or 10 representatives from a given list of names and come up with similar choices for optimum representation in each case? This is not to "technical-ize an essentially political issue"; it is simply the application of the known rational/scientific method to the problem space. The alternative is to assert that a rational method is inapplicable to representative multistakeholder selection; if that's the case, so be it, but recognize then that your laments about any given selection may fall on deaf ears (as you have given us no yardstick by which to measure validity.) Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Hopefully, they will be seen by the value (or lack thereof ;-) that they represent to the discussion, rather than the result of my "representing" (or not) others... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 ccianet.org Sat Jan 18 13:38:00 2014 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:38:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> Message-ID: Please, everyone, can we not indulge the temptation to cross-post? -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Jan 18 14:52:49 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:52:49 -1000 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:56 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are demonstrating that the “multistakeholder model” doesn’t provide an appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to assert that it does… Actually, we're in agreement on that - i.e. the burden of proof should fall to those who are attempting to assert the validity of the model. You're asserting that there could be a valid representative multistakeholder selection process, but it somehow didn't happen in this case. I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged. I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder approach fairly provides for the "represented" to have their positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this does not occur than one may argue that there isn't actual deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing and negotiation. If there is actually a some demonstrable validity to the _representative_ multistakeholder model, it would best to understand how it is supposed to function in ideal circumstances and then assess whether this particular instance of selection functioned in a compatible manner. You're asserting that this selection process lacks validity, but fail to provide any clear model of how a representative multistakeholder approach is supposed to work. I'm presuming that the burden of "being represented" must lie with each party; i.e. regardless of the number or particular folks chosen, it is incumbent upon everyone to seek out representatives and educate them on your views and positions. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, or each & every party could simply disagree with representation and demand to be their own representative. If it is supposed to work in some other manner involving objective criteria for how representation is chosen, then I know I'd like to understand those criteria before trying to pass judgement on "validity" of any representative multistakeholder selection process. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 18 16:01:46 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:01:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140118220146.55b82625@quill> John Curran wrote: > I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for > everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have > those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder > and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged. > > I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder > approach fairly provides for the "represented" to have their > positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to > revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this > does not occur than one may argue that there isn't actual > deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing and > negotiation. In my view, representative multistakeholder approaches are not about creating a broad discourse, but about populating, in a reasonably fair and balanced manner, committees and the like which for practical reasons have only a quite limited number of seats. I posit that a reasonable way to implement a process for selecting representatives is for each stakeholder category to organize a randomly selected NomCom process, with each NomCom being tasked to seek to choose a set of representatives who jointly represent the breadth of perspectives of that stakeholder category as well as is possible under the circumstances. Individuals who are close to one of the unavoidably fuzzy boundaries between stakeholder categories would get to choose which one of the stakeholder category that are on offer in that particular context fits them best. I don't claim that this kind of approach would yield perfect representation, but at least the imperfections would be random rather than systematic, and any bias in the pool of people who tend to volunteer for serving on NomComs can be addressed by the very democratic process that anyone who is concerned about such bias is free to seek to convince other qualified people (who don't have that bias) to volunteer for future NomCom pools. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 19 06:30:05 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:00:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity In-Reply-To: <0D5F71E8-E671-42E9-ACE7-B4F0DCAE121D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> <52DAE8A2.4010501@acm.org> <039801cf1492$3a512190$aef364b0$@gmail.com> <52DAF303.1030804@acm.org> <7F4F1AD0-42B6-4068-8F7A-9E7513328F61@glocom.ac.jp> <04f301cf14c9$0f6e69b0$2e4b3d10$@gmail.com> <050901cf14ca$9dd672a0$d98357e0$@gmail.com> <0D5F71E8-E671-42E9-ACE7-B4F0DCAE121D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> On Sunday 19 January 2014 09:40 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> There are several other associated lists but this is the main one. >> > > Could you point to any discussions about Internet governance, I'm finding it hard to even see any real debate/community input to the declaration you often mention. And any discussion about interest in the Brazil meeting and process: other than email from yourself, Parminder and other IT for Change staff, and Norbert, who are all active/leaders of other civil society processes? Adam You are going down the right path, Adam.... Civil society must prove itself by demonstrated work, linkages with various groups... It is a legitimacy always in the making, continually to be proved and re-proved, although too many people forget this basic feature of civil society once they get into cushy positions close to power ... Right, you may not have found many discussions on the CI list on IG directly as seen and defined by many people here..... But you will have noticed that almost every discussion there is regarding use of ICTs and Internet for empowerment of people and communities, mostly those who are currently disadvantaged. And there is considerabe traffic of such postings, and a considerable diversity of participating members. Is it not necessary to get these views into discussions on what is passed off as 'mainstream' IG. I hear a regular refrain in the IGF that it is necessary to get in groups dealing with real world Internet related issues. Do you think that registry-registrar relationships and the intricacies of the whois database are the most important Internet related issues for the people... Now that you raised questions about the legitimacies of those who are claiming exclusion, I think you would agree that the same questions are also due for those are included (by shutting out others). Apart from the very extra-ordinary spectacle of the civil society CC arrangement putting out 3 out of 3 nominees for high level committee as people from developed counties, and then the Giganet doing exactly the same - from a cursory look I can see no candidate whose primary work and civil society linkages are with grassroots community work and marginalised sections, as for instance CI groups are. I'll be happy if you can show that I am wrong in this assessment. Do you think this is not a problem? Is this not a glaring exclusion? I think this is a huge problem. And this is what this present discussion is all about. In the same way as civil society as such fights to get into IG spaces, those who work with and represent the interests of the marginalised groups have a right to fight and struggle to create spaces for their participation. It is indeed very inconvenient in the latter case to convert it into an issue of bad manners and personal ambitions! In fact, it was argued before the selections begun that work on/with marginalised communities be made an explicit criterion among others for selecting nominees. However, there were actually people on the list who argued against this criterion (pretty unbelievable, really, for civil society!) . I did not see the criterion listed in the final list. I asked the chair of the selection committee if such a criterion was applied, and he never cared to reply. This is exclusion in capital letters. And it would not be accepted. And sorry, if it hurts someone ears or eyes, you will keep hearing about it. Putting up allegation of bad manners and personalising a political issue of exclusion is an old tactic. Civil society isnt that weak to be cowed down and retire in face of such tactics... parminder PS: Adam, Since you specifically mentioned IT for Change, you may like to now that IT for Change runs a semi-autonomous entity 'Centre for Community Informatics and Development' for the last 7 years or so, at a rural town around 160 km for Bangalore. This entity works on numerous field projects, and we at IT for Change build our IG perspectives inter alia from our work over there. Do you see the link between community informatics and IG? May also add, that 2 years back my colleague Anita edited a special edition of the Community Informatics journal on 'gender and community informatics'..... and so on... >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:47 PM >> To: 'Adam Peake'; discuss at 1net.org >> Subject: RE: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative >> Multistakeholder model validity >> >> Yes, and I've pointed to it several times on this list and on others. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:40 PM >> To: discuss at 1net.org; michael gurstein >> Subject: Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative >> Multistakeholder model validity >> >> A related question. Michael, about the community informatics group, is this >> the archive of the group's mailing list >> ? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>>> I hope that this answers your questions. >>>> >>> It does answer the question I asled. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> So, I conclude that >>> >>> a. /1net has already given you the pre-disposition you should expect >>> with >> the list of nominees you just submitted an appeal on. As you know I am >> among those who think the /1net leadership, pre-SC and now the /1net-sc, do >> have the responsibility for dealing with your appeal. But the prior notice >> that they were only going to accept nomination from certain sources was >> probably a clue as to how they would react to a slate presented directly to >> them once they gave it appropriate consideration. >>> b. the names were not submitted to any other process. >>> >>> While other processes may not have sent the request for nominees far >>> and >> wide, a statement that i think needs to be proven yet, I wonder did you and >> the other Ig experienced people mentoring the CI through this process know >> about the opportunities for getting CI members into the mix while there was >> still time. >>> Thanks again for your reply. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18-Jan-14 16:14, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> CI submitted its nominations to the br.cgi folks who told us to >>>> submit these to 1net. >>>> >>>> We submitted these nominations to 1net and were told that they were >>>> only accepting nominations that were forwarded through CS: CC and >> GigaNet. >>>> Our approach to CS: CC concerning involvement with their processes >>>> including nominations was rebuffed. No request for nominations was >>>> circulated outside of the 4 organizations which constitute the CS: CC. >>>> >>>> The GigaNet process was evidently exclusive to GigaNet as no >>>> information or request for nominations was, to my knowledge >>>> circulated outside of the closed GigaNet list. >>>> >>>> I hope that this answers your questions. >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:49 PM >>>> To: discuss at 1net.org >>>> Subject: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative >>>> Multistakeholder model validity >>>> >>>> (all cc dropped) >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have one question on all of this, did CI present its candidate list >>>> to any other processes? I have noticed in these processes that >>>> various people and groups submitted the same names to different >>>> processes. So even if CI was holding out for either doing it own >>>> thing to establish its footprint in the /1net movement or for the >>>> invitation it did not get to be on the joint CS selection process, >>>> did they make sure, given the uncertainty of their appeals, that >>>> their candidates were also considered by Academia and the CS4 processes? >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 18-Jan-14 14 @gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for >>>>> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have >>>>> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to >>>>> ponder and revise their understanding based on the information >> exchanged. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discuss mailing list >>>> discuss at 1net.org >>>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Jan 19 07:47:28 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:47:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity In-Reply-To: <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> <52DAE8A2.4010501@acm.org> <039801cf1492$3a512190$aef364b0$@gmail.com> <52DAF303.1030804@acm.org> <7F4F1AD0-42B6-4068-8F7A-9E7513328F61@glocom.ac.jp> <04f301cf14c9$0f6e69b0$2e4b3d10$@gmail.com> <050901cf14ca$9dd672a0$d98357e0$@gmail.com> <0D5F71E8-E671-42E9-ACE7-B4F0DCAE121D@glocom.ac.jp> <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 with Parminder It's like a dieticians convention excluding local doctors because they are not active on the dieticians discussion list. Louis - - - On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:30 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 19 January 2014 09:40 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> There are several other associated lists but this is the main one. >>> >>> >> Could you point to any discussions about Internet governance, I'm finding >> it hard to even see any real debate/community input to the declaration you >> often mention. And any discussion about interest in the Brazil meeting and >> process: other than email from yourself, Parminder and other IT for Change >> staff, and Norbert, who are all active/leaders of other civil society >> processes? >> > > Adam > > [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 19 22:56:33 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:56:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity In-Reply-To: <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> <52DAE8A2.4010501@acm.org> <039801cf1492$3a512190$aef364b0$@gmail.com> <52DAF303.1030804@acm.org> <7F4F1AD0-42B6-4068-8F7A-9E7513328F61@glocom.ac.jp> <04f301cf14c9$0f6e69b0$2e4b3d10$@gmail.com> <050901cf14ca$9dd672a0$d98357e0$@gmail.com> <0D5F71E8-E671-42E9-ACE7-B4F0DCAE121D@glocom.ac.jp> <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52DC9E71.1040400@ciroap.org> On 19/01/14 19:30, parminder wrote: > Now that you raised questions about the legitimacies of those who are > claiming exclusion, I think you would agree that the same questions > are also due for those are included (by shutting out others). Apart > from the very extra-ordinary spectacle of the civil society CC > arrangement putting out 3 out of 3 nominees for high level committee > as people from developed counties, Just briefly: Parminder, this is an odd observation as you had asked the coordination group to select Louis in place of yourself (though I'm not saying that Louis was selected for that reason). Also, do note that half of the coordination group members are from developing countries so the desirability of developing country representation was certainly not overlooked (by them, or by the rest of us). As to Community Informatics, I've ceased engaging with Michael about this. As I had long respected him, his lack of compunction about attacking colleagues and friends over this issue with repeated untruths saddens me greatly (hint: his group wasn't ignored or excluded without explanation, and neither is the coordination group the self-selected, self-dealing cabal he claims). Beyond this, Ian will soon be putting out a discussion paper from the coordination group about its future and how representation within the group can be broadened. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 20 01:57:50 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:57:50 +1100 Subject: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments Message-ID: I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and we will look forward to getting wide input. But firstly- is there a need for such a group? There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing communication between groups working in the area of internet governance might be useful. The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for involvement. One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest – but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until the co ordination group is fully populated. That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, but also for any future CS representation). We present three different options here. OPTION ONE - VOTING This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some other examples. While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so random Nomcoms, with the following results: 2 included known trolls. Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only one or two active members. One refused to work with the appointed Chair One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual making decisions Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” To this we would add issues involved with random selection when factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations because they weren’t randomly selected. So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important matters of representation best not left to chance. OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake when in place. And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to and sorted out. CRITERIA We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these under consideration 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance issues Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. Over to everyone for comments. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jan 20 03:27:16 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:57:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, this could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. --srs (iPad) > On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > > > > I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. > > What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and we will look forward to getting wide input. > > > But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > > There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing communication between groups working in the area of internet governance might be useful. > > The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. > > > > > 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > > This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for involvement. > > One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest – but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until the co ordination group is fully populated. > > That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... > > > 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, but also for any future CS representation). > > We present three different options here. > > OPTION ONE - VOTING > > This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) > > So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. > > OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > > This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some other examples. > > While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. > > Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > > “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so random Nomcoms, with the following results: > > 2 included known trolls. > Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only one or two active members. > One refused to work with the appointed Chair > One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual making decisions > Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > > To this we would add issues involved with random selection when factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations because they weren’t randomly selected. > > So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important matters of representation best not left to chance. > > > OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > > This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake when in place. > > > And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to and sorted out. > > CRITERIA > > We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these under consideration > > 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? > > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? > > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. > > > 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance issues > > Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. > > > > Over to everyone for comments. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 20 04:14:58 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:14:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140120101458.74127e44@quill> I've already said and written many times that I'm in favor of setting up a Civil Society Joint NomCom process (with randomly selected voting members for each selection task), and this is still my opinion. Ian Peter wrote about his personal experiences with NomComs: > Only one of 9 had all members active The original NomCom process, at IETF, has the requirement that people are included in the selection pool for the NomCom only if they “have attended at least 3 out of the last 5 IETF meetings.” I think that the risk of a significant percentage of NomCom members being inactive can be significantly reduced by adopting some kind of analogous criterion. > most worked on the basis of only one or two active members. I'm assuming that this remark is in the context of NomComs such as those used by IGC with only a small number of voting members (in IGC's case, only five). I believe this problem has been reduced in IGC since the practice was adopted of including already in the random selection process the selection of “reserves” who would be called upon to replace people selected as voting members who then don't actually serve. Another change that can be made to prevent that kind of problem is to increase the number of voting NomCom members that are appointed on the basis of the random selection. The size of the volunteer pool, which may be limited in smaller communities, should not be an issue for a Civil Society Joint NomCom process. IETF NomComs have ten randomly selected voting members, this is IMO a good number for a Civil Society Joint NomCom process also. 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 Mon Jan 20 04:26:08 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:56:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <20140120101458.74127e44@quill> References: <20140120101458.74127e44@quill> Message-ID: <794798F9-0EF3-47A3-A033-0F8070326C61@hserus.net> The size of the volunteer pool matters. The problem that historically plagues such a model is, you get essentially a much larger number of people favoring a particular ideology (from either side of the political spectrum) putting their names forward for consideration to be nomcom people. And they end up rigging the process so that only a candidate that matches their views is selected. If there's a random selection, an imbalance in the number of people of a particular ideology that puts their name forward increases the chance that the final nomcom includes a non trivial number of people following that ideology. This happened sometime in the 1980s when a hard left faction of the British Labour Party first pushed through a rule mandating that it would play a role in selecting and re-nominating MPs, and then managed to eject several moderates in favour of people that shared a hard left ideology. --srs (iPad) > On 20-Jan-2014, at 14:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I've already said and written many times that I'm in favor of setting > up a Civil Society Joint NomCom process (with randomly selected > voting members for each selection task), and this is still my opinion. > > > Ian Peter wrote about his personal experiences > with NomComs: > >> Only one of 9 had all members active > > The original NomCom process, at IETF, has the requirement that people > are included in the selection pool for the NomCom only if they “have > attended at least 3 out of the last 5 IETF meetings.” > > I think that the risk of a significant percentage of NomCom members > being inactive can be significantly reduced by adopting some kind of > analogous criterion. > >> most worked on the basis of only one or two active members. > > I'm assuming that this remark is in the context of NomComs such as > those used by IGC with only a small number of voting members (in IGC's > case, only five). > > I believe this problem has been reduced in IGC since the practice was > adopted of including already in the random selection process the > selection of “reserves” who would be called upon to replace people > selected as voting members who then don't actually serve. > > Another change that can be made to prevent that kind of problem is to > increase the number of voting NomCom members that are appointed > on the basis of the random selection. > > The size of the volunteer pool, which may be limited in smaller > communities, should not be an issue for a Civil Society Joint NomCom > process. > > IETF NomComs have ten randomly selected voting members, this is IMO a > good number for a Civil Society Joint NomCom process also. > > > 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Jan 20 04:35:15 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:35:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: How about a "network nomcom"? Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of improvement of what we have now. What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. Here is my suggestion: 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s for the task at hand. What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called for 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies the Chair or their rep on the NomCom Best Nnenna On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, this > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >> >> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >> might be useful. >> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >> >> >> >> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >> involvement. >> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest – >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >> >> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >> but also for any future CS representation). >> >> We present three different options here. >> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >> other examples. >> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >> >> 2 included known trolls. >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >> one or two active members. >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >> making decisions >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >> >> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >> when in place. >> >> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >> and sorted out. >> >> CRITERIA >> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >> under consideration >> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >> covered? >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >> business)? >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >> business or government in its categorization? >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >> the existing members? >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >> knowledge of internet governance issues >> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >> >> >> >> Over to everyone for comments. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jan 20 04:40:39 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:10:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: This might actually work given a few fixes .. such as the nomination of alternates. Thank you for proposing this model, Nnenna. Now it remains to be seen - which networks, just these or any more? --srs (iPad) > On 20-Jan-2014, at 15:05, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > >> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent >> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the >> caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, this >> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other >> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >> >> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are >> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have >> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >>> >>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for >>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and >>> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>> >>> >>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>> >>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >>> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs >>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >>> might be useful. >>> >>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>> >>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until >>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on >>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >>> involvement. >>> >>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest – >>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until >>> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>> >>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >>> >>> >>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >>> but also for any future CS representation). >>> >>> We present three different options here. >>> >>> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>> >>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us >>> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >>> >>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>> >>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>> >>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of >>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >>> other examples. >>> >>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >>> >>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>> >>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >>> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>> >>> 2 included known trolls. >>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >>> one or two active members. >>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >>> making decisions >>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>> >>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for >>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >>> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>> >>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >>> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>> >>> >>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>> >>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and >>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >>> when in place. >>> >>> >>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >>> and sorted out. >>> >>> CRITERIA >>> >>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >>> under consideration >>> >>> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >>> covered? >>> >>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>> business)? >>> >>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >>> business or government in its categorization? >>> >>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >>> the existing members? >>> >>> >>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >>> accountable to its members. >>> >>> >>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >>> knowledge of internet governance issues >>> >>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >>> >>> >>> >>> Over to everyone for comments. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rhill at hill-a.ch Mon Jan 20 05:39:20 2014 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:39:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140118095937.41a21cf7@quill> Message-ID: Please see embedded replies below to your four questions. Thanks and best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: samedi, 18. janvier 2014 10:00 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; rhill; Daniel IGA MWESIGWA; Birgitta > Jónsdóttir > Subject: Re: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil > MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) > > > Since the text below obviously wasn't provocative enough to get a > discussion started, let me ask a few questions... > > > These questions refer to “political tone” and “technical precision”. > > > With “political tone” I mean that when textual contributions are > invited from any source, some of them will express concerns about > actions or potential actions of other stakeholders; those texts will be > somewhere on the scale from > > unjustifiable verbal attacks and insults > > over > > candid and direct expression of legitimate concerns > > to > > traditional diplomatic language. > > > With “technical precision” I mean that contributions on topics > related tot he Internet will be somewhere on the scale from > > being based on explicit factually wrong assertions about the Internet > > over > > expressions of legitimate concerns in layman terms which are not > exactly wrong but difficult to interpret precisely in the context of > how the Internet actually works > > to > > precise and technically accurate problem statements and solution > proposals. > > > Now when inputs from stakeholders are intended to contribute to the > formulation of a reasonably consistent output document, there is a > need to apply some kind of uniform standard in regard to both of these > dimensions. > > > This leads to the following questions: > > 1. Which standards should be adopted in regard to political tone and > technical precision? I think that ad hominem attacks, insults, etc. should not be allowed. Anything else is welcome. > > 2. How is it decided whether proposed text fulfills the requirements > in regard to these two dimensions? I don't think that you need to do that. You ask for a concrete proposal related to the draft output text, then decide whether the proposed add/del/mod should be accepted or not. The mechanism for deciding is whatever version of "consensus" seems appopriate to the group developing the document. That is, use the "single text" approach: there is one document, and anybody is free to propose changes to it. The changes are discussed and agreed or not. > > 3. How to empower people to express their concerns in a way that > conforms to the expectations in regard to political tone and > technical precision? Simply state the ground rules and politely remind people of them, as needed. > > 4. How to prevent the standards on political tone and technical > precision from being abused to suppress inconvenient truths? If you only exclude insults, ad hominem attacks, etc, there should be no problem. > > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > In order to kick off the discussion, here's an initial, quite rough, > > draft of one possible idea: > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > --snip-------------------------------------------------------------- > > This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes > > for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder > > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > > > > According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus > > on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for > > the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” > > > > Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it > > may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering > > requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles > > and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from > > various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the > > various perspectives on this are. > > > > If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling > > substantive inputs could include the following: > > > > * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input > > documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various > > perspectives. > > > > * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive > > inputs into a comprehensiove report. > > > > * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive > > contributions. the working group will draft a report on > > requirements and concerns, noting which points require further > > clarification. > > > > * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that > > their contribution is reflected appropriately. > > > > * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have > > submitted are processed. > > > > * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify > > what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report > > can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the > > various perspectives on this are. > > > > * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that > > need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. > > > > * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions > > attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open > > points. > > > > * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution > > proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. > > > > --snap-------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Am Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100 > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start > > > woking on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes > > > for the Brazil MSM... > > > > > > I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in > > > editing > > > > http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes > > > and pages that you create, linking them from there. > > > > > > Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in > > > which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as > > > acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to > > > civil society perspectives). > > > > > > I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are > > > reasonable will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about > > > the objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might > > > be the best approach to make several proposals on the basis of > > > several possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be > > > defined. > > > > > > In any case, let's get going! > > > > > > The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC > > > mailing list) have requested to be Cc'd: > > > > > > Richard Hill > > > Daniel Iga Mwesigwa > > > Birgitta Jónsdóttir > > > > > > Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 20 08:47:44 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:47:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity In-Reply-To: <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> <52DAE8A2.4010501@acm.org> <039801cf1492$3a512190$aef364b0$@gmail.com> <52DAF303.1030804@acm.org> <7F4F1AD0-42B6-4068-8F7A-9E7513328F61@glocom.ac.jp> <04f301cf14c9$0f6e69b0$2e4b3d10$@gmail.com> <050901cf14ca$9dd672a0$d98357e0$@gmail.com> <0D5F71E8-E671-42E9-ACE7-B4F0DCAE121D@glocom.ac.jp> <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <52DBB73D.7090501 at itforchange.net>, at 17:00:05 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014, parminder writes >Civil society must prove itself by demonstrated work, linkages with >various groups... It is a legitimacy always in the making, >continually to be proved and re-proved, I don't think Civil Society does, they are just a bunch of people going about their daily lives. Those who claim to *represent* Civil Society, however, may have some of those things to do. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 20 08:50:17 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:50:17 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Re: CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity In-Reply-To: References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> <52DAE8A2.4010501@acm.org> <039801cf1492$3a512190$aef364b0$@gmail.com> <52DAF303.1030804@acm.org> <7F4F1AD0-42B6-4068-8F7A-9E7513328F61@glocom.ac.jp> <04f301cf14c9$0f6e69b0$2e4b3d10$@gmail.com> <050901cf14ca$9dd672a0$d98357e0$@gmail.com> <0D5F71E8-E671-42E9-ACE7-B4F0DCAE121D@glocom.ac.jp> <52DBB73D.7090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 13:47:28 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014, "Louis Pouzin (well)" writes >It's like a dieticians convention excluding local doctors because they >are not active on the dieticians discussion list. Or a dieticians convention that excludes members of the public who have weight issues, and unhappy that nothing is being done to help them, who have turned up looking for someone to take up their cause. -- 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 20 23:20:54 2014 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:20:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Co-Coordinator Elections Candidates (Update) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks for both Sala and Norbert. And thanks also to the candidates willing to volunteer for this difficult position. izumi 2014/1/16 Antonio Medina Gómez > Thanks Sala. > Best regards > Antonio Medina Gomez > > > 2014/1/16 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> Warm Greetings! Trusting that you have all had a very good holiday. >> Following calls in June, 2013 seeking nominations of candidates for the >> co-coordinator position to replace me and in light of the recent >> resignation of Norbert Bollow, this is to advise that we will be >> facilitating the elections to elect two co-coordinators as both positions >> are vacant as at December 31, 2013. >> >> I am only acting in this position until the conclusion of the elections. >> Traditionally, post elections, we have often received complaints that >> people were not happy with the slate of candidates, however, given the >> multiple notices and opportunities given to the community to offer >> yourselves or nominate people, I believe there is no room to complain >> against the slate. >> >> I have great pleasure in announcing the candidates and they are: >> >> 1) Deirdre Williams >> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah >> 3) Mawaki Chango >> >> Their candidate profiles including their biographies, disclosure of >> interest and vision for the IGC can be viewed here: >> http://igcaucus.org/election-2014-2016-nominees >> >> We have been getting ready to facilitate elections and you should expect >> the ballot papers in your mailboxes in the not too distant future. I would >> like to take the opportunity to thank all those the candidates and wish >> them well. >> >> We had one candidate who was nominated offlist but withdrew. >> >> With every best wish, >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> (Outgoing co-coordinator) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 21 16:33:43 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:33:43 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion on Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts. On other subjects - Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or not to have individuals as well as representatives of organisations on co ordination group? -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments How about a "network nomcom"? Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of improvement of what we have now. What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. Here is my suggestion: 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s for the task at hand. What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called for 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies the Chair or their rep on the NomCom Best Nnenna On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, > this > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on > other > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that > have > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling >> for >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, >> and >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >> >> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great >> needs >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >> might be useful. >> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >> >> >> >> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations >> until >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion >> on >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >> involvement. >> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >> interest – >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions >> until >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >> >> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >> but also for any future CS representation). >> >> We present three different options here. >> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for >> us >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter >> of >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >> other examples. >> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >> >> 2 included known trolls. >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >> one or two active members. >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >> making decisions >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case >> for >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >> >> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable >> and >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >> when in place. >> >> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >> and sorted out. >> >> CRITERIA >> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >> under consideration >> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >> covered? >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >> business)? >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >> business or government in its categorization? >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >> the existing members? >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >> knowledge of internet governance issues >> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >> >> >> >> Over to everyone for comments. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 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 soekpe at gmail.com Tue Jan 21 17:50:53 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:50:53 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> Message-ID: Thanks All for the beautiful contribution. I buy into the idea of networks. Since public interest is of great importance; Can we identify government representative that do have passion on civil societies view? The "Coordinating Nomcom of Networks" will be a good platform to engineering transparency and accountability. Best Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion on Nomcom > alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts. > > On other subjects - > > Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or not to > have individuals as well as representatives of organisations on co > ordination group? > > -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - > call for comments > > > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent >> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the >> caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, >> this >> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on >> other >> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >> >> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are >> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that >> have >> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >>> >>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling >>> for >>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, >>> and >>> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>> >>> >>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>> >>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >>> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great >>> needs >>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >>> might be useful. >>> >>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>> >>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations >>> until >>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on >>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >>> involvement. >>> >>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest >>> – >>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions >>> until >>> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>> >>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >>> >>> >>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >>> but also for any future CS representation). >>> >>> We present three different options here. >>> >>> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>> >>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for >>> us >>> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >>> >>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>> >>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>> >>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter >>> of >>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >>> other examples. >>> >>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >>> >>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>> >>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >>> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>> >>> 2 included known trolls. >>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >>> one or two active members. >>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >>> making decisions >>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>> >>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case >>> for >>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >>> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>> >>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >>> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>> >>> >>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>> >>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable >>> and >>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >>> when in place. >>> >>> >>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >>> and sorted out. >>> >>> CRITERIA >>> >>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >>> under consideration >>> >>> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >>> covered? >>> >>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>> business)? >>> >>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >>> business or government in its categorization? >>> >>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >>> the existing members? >>> >>> >>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >>> accountable to its members. >>> >>> >>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >>> knowledge of internet governance issues >>> >>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >>> >>> >>> >>> Over to everyone for comments. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Tue Jan 21 22:19:20 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:19:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] The Day We Fight Back - February 11th Message-ID: <52DF38B8.8000109@eff.org> Dear Friends of the Internet: The Snowden revelations have provided us with disturbing details and confirmation of some of our worst fears about the NSA and its partners spying practices. Indeed, the NSA and its five allies in five English-speaking countries have been building a global surveillance infrastructure to “master the internet” and spy on the worlds communications. They are undermining basic encryption standards, the very backbone of the Internet. It has collected the phone records of hundreds of millions of people not suspected of any crime. It has swept up the electronic communications of millions of people at home and abroad indiscriminately, exploiting the digital technologies we use to connect and inform. They have secretive data sharing agreements to bypass domestic privacy protections and outside of the rule of law. But we aren’t going to let the NSA and its five allies to ruin the Internet. Inspired by the memory of Aaron, fueled by our victory against SOPA and ACTA, we are joining the DayWeFightBack campaign to fight back against mass surveillance at home and abroad. To that end, we are asking you to join the campaign by: 1. Sending an email to rights at eff.org confirming your interest to participate in this action; 2. Letting us know what you can do in your own country. I'm hoping to have your answer as soon as possible so we can take the next steps. And if you have a huge newsletter database that can reach out to thousands of individuals, please let us know that too. There might be other ways where you can collaborate in the global campaign. The SOPA and ACTA protests were successful because we all took part, as a community. As Aaron put it, everybody "made themselves the hero of their own story." We can set a date, but we need all of you, the users of the Internet, to make it a movement. More information Timing The public-facing side of this campaign, based on the timing suggested by The Day We Fight Back organizers is February 11th. Here's how you can join the effort: 1. Visit TheDayWeFightBack.org. 2. If you are a citizen of the world, sign the 13 Necessary and Proportionate Principles here: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/take-action: Note: We are currently revamping the site of the Necessary and Proportionate Principles. 3. Sign up to indicate that you'll participate and receive updates. 4. If you have a website, install a banner on February 11th. If you work at a company with a website, let them know you think your company should join the protest. 5. Use social media tools on the site to announce your participation. 6. Develop memes, tools, websites, and do whatever else you can to participate and encourage others to do so. 7. Be creative. Organize your own action -- Call for the end of mass surveillance at home and abroad. Katitza Rodriguez EFF International Rights Director -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 555 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 03:46:40 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:46:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian, all I will say +1 in enlarging the current group in place. ]Jeanette, do you think that a mandate of 1 year for the nomcom will be a good idea? Best Nnenna On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Thanks All for the beautiful contribution. > I buy into the idea of networks. > Since public interest is of great importance; Can we identify government > representative that do have passion on civil societies view? The > "Coordinating Nomcom of Networks" will be a good platform to engineering > transparency and accountability. > > Best > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion on >> Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts. >> >> On other subjects - >> >> Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or not to >> have individuals as well as representatives of organisations on co >> ordination group? >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; >> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - >> call for comments >> >> >> How about a "network nomcom"? >> >> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of >> improvement of what we have now. >> >> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of >> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. >> >> Here is my suggestion: >> >> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions >> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) >> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. >> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, >> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom >> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed >> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their >> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide >> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s >> for the task at hand. >> >> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: >> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition >> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the >> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called >> for >> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem >> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" >> >> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, >> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each >> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies >> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom >> >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to >>> represent >>> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the >>> caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, >>> this >>> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on >>> other >>> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >>> >>> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are >>> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that >>> have >>> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >>>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >>>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and >>>> input. >>>> >>>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >>>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling >>>> for >>>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, >>>> and >>>> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>>> >>>> >>>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>>> >>>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >>>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >>>> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great >>>> needs >>>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >>>> might be useful. >>>> >>>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >>>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >>>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >>>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>>> >>>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >>>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations >>>> until >>>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion >>>> on >>>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >>>> involvement. >>>> >>>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >>>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >>>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >>>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >>>> interest – >>>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >>>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >>>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >>>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions >>>> until >>>> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>>> >>>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >>>> but also for any future CS representation). >>>> >>>> We present three different options here. >>>> >>>> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>>> >>>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >>>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >>>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where >>>> suddenly >>>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >>>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for >>>> us >>>> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >>>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And >>>> setting >>>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >>>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >>>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >>>> >>>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>>> >>>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>>> >>>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter >>>> of >>>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >>>> other examples. >>>> >>>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>>> >>>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >>>> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>>> >>>> 2 included known trolls. >>>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >>>> one or two active members. >>>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >>>> making decisions >>>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>>> >>>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case >>>> for >>>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >>>> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>>> >>>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >>>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >>>> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>>> >>>> >>>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>>> >>>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >>>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >>>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable >>>> and >>>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >>>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could >>>> undertake >>>> when in place. >>>> >>>> >>>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >>>> and sorted out. >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >>>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >>>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >>>> under consideration >>>> >>>> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all >>>> regions >>>> covered? >>>> >>>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>>> business)? >>>> >>>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >>>> business or government in its categorization? >>>> >>>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one >>>> of >>>> the existing members? >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent >>>> and >>>> accountable to its members. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >>>> knowledge of internet governance issues >>>> >>>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Over to everyone for comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 22 04:04:46 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:04:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52DF89AE.1010905@wzb.eu> Hi Nnenna, that depends. Nominating people on these lists has always been an effort. This is why I'd prefer longer terms of two years. Perhaps it woulc best to consult the networks and coalitions as to what they regard as managable? We would depend on them to appoint reliable and qualified people who do the job. jeanette Am 22.01.14 09:46, schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma: > Dear Ian, all > > I will say +1 in enlarging the current group in place. > ]Jeanette, do you think that a mandate of 1 year for the nomcom will be > a good idea? > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe > wrote: > > Thanks All for the beautiful contribution. > I buy into the idea of networks. > Since public interest is of great importance; Can we identify > government representative that do have passion on civil societies > view? The "Coordinating Nomcom of Networks" will be a good platform > to engineering transparency and accountability. > > Best > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + > 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion > on Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts. > > On other subjects - > > Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or > not to have individuals as well as representatives of > organisations on co ordination group? > > -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > > > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination > group - call for comments > > > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other > networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within > itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may > decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified > person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being > called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 > year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. > Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being > selected to represent > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior > engagement with the > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the > inclusion, this > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good > standing on other > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, > where there are > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or > groups that have > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov > issues. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" > > > wrote: > > > > > > I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among > members of the > civil society co ordination group for comments and > input. It relates to > some options for this group. It would be good to have > comments and input. > > What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, > after which we > will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to > get a feeling for > how people think about options emerging. So please > comment and digest, and > we will look forward to getting wide input. > > > But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > > There certainly was in the context of appointing > representatives for > Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly > advisable for > functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no > other great needs > at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a > continuing > communication between groups working in the area of > internet governance > might be useful. > > The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be > for the group to > go into recess until another urgent need arises. But > that choice would > simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group > (or its > successors) when there is a need again - or > alternatively lead to > fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society > representation. > > > > > 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > > This has been the subject of previous discussion with a > number of > different parties and it was decided to defer further > considerations until > after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also > some discussion on > list here immediately before Christmas about some > possible criteria for > involvement. > > One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide > to enlarge the > group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members > could remain and > would be joined by one of the incoming IGC > Co-ordinators. For additional > voting members, we suggest that we open it up to > expressions of interest – > but not only from organisations, but also from > individuals. That allows > involvement of representatives of multistakeholder > groups with a strong > relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be > a good step, and > to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave > such questions until > the co ordination group is fully populated. > > That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how > to select.... > > > 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co > ordination group, > but also for any future CS representation). > > We present three different options here. > > OPTION ONE - VOTING > > This works well within one organisation, but is more > difficult with > multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, > who is out? And > some of us remember the original ICANN at large > elections, where suddenly > thousands of people with no previous involvement got > involved in support > of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. > The context for us > here is that, without a consolidated membership list of > all our > organisations, this is very open to capture and > manipulation. And setting > up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting > list is a fairly > time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to > ask which > organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists > would be included) > > So there are a few issues to solve if we take that > direction. > > OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > > This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted > in the Charter of > IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but > there may be some > other examples. > > While this form is gospel to some people, others have > reservations. > > Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > > “My personal reservations arise from involvement with > perhaps 9 or so > random Nomcoms, with the following results: > > 2 included known trolls. > Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on > the basis of only > one or two active members. > One refused to work with the appointed Chair > One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with > one individual > making decisions > Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > > To this we would add issues involved with random > selection when > factions/different organisations are involved. It is > easy in this case for > important sections of CS to be left out entirely from > deliberations > because they weren’t randomly selected. > > So some of us caution against use of this form in the > context of a > multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these > are important > matters of representation best not left to chance. > > > OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > > This is the most widely used form and is used by > technical community, > business community, ICANN, and just about any other > organisation we can > think of. It’s the safest way, providing that > transparent, accountable and > inclusive processes are used to select the members of > the Nomcom. That > would be something the coordination group mentioned > above could undertake > when in place. > > > And I am sure there are other variations. But they need > to be agreed to > and sorted out. > > CRITERIA > > We also need criteria for selection. Previously we > discussed these in > terms of determining suitable organisations who would > nominate > representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as > well, they will > need to change. But for reference, the previous > discussions left these > under consideration > > 1. Is it a coalition which is globally > representative - all regions > covered? > > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as > opposed to > business)? > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical > community, academic, > business or government in its categorization? > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already > covered by one of > the existing members? > > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is > adequately transparent and > accountable to its members. > > > 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current > involvement in and > knowledge of internet governance issues > > Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have > to change. > > > > Over to everyone for comments. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/__translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 22 06:26:08 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 03:26:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] One Planet, One Internet: A Call To the International Community to Fight Against Mass Surveillance Message-ID: <52DFAAD0.6030809@eff.org> One Planet, One Internet: A Call To the International Community to Fight Against Mass Surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/february-11-day-we-fight-back-calling-international-community The Snowden revelations have confirmed our worst fears about online spying. They show that the NSA and its allies have been building a global surveillance infrastructure to “master the internet” and spy on the world’s communications. These shady groups have undermined basic encryption standards, and riddled the Internet’s backbone with surveillance equipment. They have collected the phone records of hundreds of millions of people none of whom are suspected of any crime. They have swept up the electronic communications of millions of people at home and overseas indiscriminately, exploiting the digital technologies we use to connect and inform. They spy on the population of allies, and share that data with other organizations, all outside the rule of law. We aren’t going to let the NSA and its allies ruin the Internet. Inspired by the memory of Aaron Swartz, fueled by our victory against SOPA and ACTA, the global digital rights community are uniting to fight back. On February 11, on the Day We Fight Back, the world will demand an end to mass surveillance in every country, by every state, regardless of boundaries or politics. The SOPA and ACTA protests were successful because we all took part, as a community. As Aaron Swartz put it, everybody "made themselves the hero of their own story." We can set a date, but we need everyone, all the users of the Global Internet, to make this a movement. Here’s part of our plan (but it’s just the beginning). Last year, before Ed Snowden had spoken to the world, digital rights activists united on 13 Principles. The Principles spelled out just why mass surveillance was a violation of human rights, and gave sympathetic lawmakers and judges a list of fixes they could apply to the lawless Internet spooks. On the day we fight back, we want the world to sign onto those principles. We want politicians to pledge to uphold them. We want the world to see we care. Here's how you can join the effort: Send an email to rights (AT) eff.org confirming your interest in participating in this action and receiving updates. Let us know what you would like to do in your own country so we can send you more information and amplify your voice. Visit TheDayWeFightBack.org and Take Action. Join your fellow global citizens and, sign the 13 Necessary and Proportionate Principles here: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/take-action/EFF and twee #privacyisaright Use social media tools to announce your participation. Develop memes, tools, websites, and do whatever else you can to encourage others to participate. Be creative -- plan your own actions and pledge. Go to the streets. Promote the Principles in your own country. Then, let us know what your plan is, so we can link and re-broadcast your efforts. The organizers of the Day We Fight Back are: Demand Progress Access EFF Internet Taskforce FFTF Free Press Mozilla Reddit ThoughtWorks BoingBoing The organizers of the international action center are: Amnesty International USA Access (International) Anti-vigilancia (Brasil) Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina) Asociacion de Internautas - Spain (Spain) Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet (Colombia) Bolo Bhi (Pakistan) CCC (Germany) ContingenteMX (Mexico) CIPPIC (Canada) Digitale Gesellschaft (Germany) Digital Courage (Germany) Electronic Frontier Foundation (International) Electronic Frontiers Australia (Australia) Hiperderecho (Peru) ICT Consumers Association of Kenya Open Rights Group (UK) OpenMedia.org (Canada/International) OpenNet Korea (South Korea) Panoptykon Foundation (Poland) Privacy International (International) PEN International (International) TEDIC (Paraguay) RedPaTodos (Colombia) ShareDefense (Balkans) The Internet’s spies have spent too long listening on our most private thoughts and fears. Now it’s time they really heard us. If you share our anger, share the principles: and fight back. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 555 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 06:54:21 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:54:21 -0600 Subject: [governance] Why CS must protect its diversity Message-ID: http://xkcd.com/1320/ (When a network tries to be everyone's one-stop hub, the Walmart of social interaction... ...it inevitably becomes the Walmart of social interaction.) [image: Walmart] Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 11:37:47 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:37:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI === CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. The commission will focus on four key themes: • Enhancing governance legitimacy; • Stimulating innovation; • Ensuring human rights online; • Avoiding systemic risks. “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance • Dominic Barton • Pablo Bello • Dae-Whan Chang • Moez Chatchouk • Michael Chertoff • Anriette Esterhuysen • Hartmut Glaser • Dorothy Gordon • Dame Wendy Hall • Fen Osler Hampson • Melissa Hathaway • Patricia Lewis • Mathias Müller von Blumencron • Beth Simone Noveck • Joseph S. Nye • Sir David Omand • Nii Quaynor • Latha Reddy • Marietje Schaake • Tobby Simon • Michael Spence • Paul Twomey • Pindar Wong “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. === _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 22 12:40:16 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:40:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Paper: IEEE 2014 Fourth International Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE2014) Message-ID: <010f01cf1799$031b9c50$0952d4f0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] ========================================================================== CALL FOR PAPERS IEEE 2014 Fourth International Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE2014) One day between June 27 and July 2, 2014, at Hilton Anchorage, Alaska, USA Co-located with IEEE SERVICES 2014 (http://www.servicescongress.org/2014/) Workshop Web page: http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SPE2014/ ========================================================================== =========== Description =========== Built upon the success of spectrum of conferences within the IEEE World Congress on Services, the Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE 2014) workshop is a unique place to exchange ideas of engineering secure systems in the context of service computing, cloud computing, and big data analytics. The emphasis on engineering in security and privacy of services differentiates the workshop from other traditional prestigious security and privacy workshops, symposiums, and conferences. The practicality and value realization are examined by practitioners from leading industries as well as scientists from academia. In line with the engineering spirit, we solicit original papers on building secure service systems that can be applied to government procurement, digital medical records, cloud environments, social networking for business purposes, multimedia application, mobile commerce, education, and the like. Potential contributions could cover, but are not limited to, methodologies, protocols, tools, or verification and validation techniques. We also welcome review papers that analyze critically the status of current Security and Privacy (S&P) in a specific area. Papers from practitioners who encounter security and privacy problems and seek understanding are also welcome. Topics of interests of SPE 2014 include, but are not limited to: - S&P Engineering of Service-Based Applications - Security Engineering of Service Compositions - Practical Approaches to Security Engineering of Services - Privacy-Aware Service Engineering - Industrial and Real Use Cases in S&P Engineering of (Cloud) Services - S&P Engineering of Cloud Services - Auditing and Assessment - Assurance and Certification - Security Management and Governance - Privacy Enforcement in Clouds and Services - Cybersecurity Issues of Clouds and Services - Validation and Verification of S&P in Clouds and Services - Applied Cryptography for S&P in Clouds and Services - S&P Testing in Clouds and Services - Security and Privacy Modeling - Socio-Economics and Compliance - Education and Awareness - Big Data S&P Engineering =============== Important Dates =============== Full Paper Submission Due Date: March 29, 2014 Decision Notification (Electronic): April 12, 2014 Camera-Ready Copy Due Date & Pre-registration Due: May 1, 2014 ================ Paper Submission ================ Authors are invited to submit full papers (about 8 pages) or short papers (about 4 pages) as per IEEE 8.5 x 11 manuscript guidelines (download Word templates http://conferences.computer.org/icws/2014/IEEECS_CPS_8.5x11x2.zip or LaTeX templates http://conferences.computer.org/icws/2014/IEEECS_CPS_LaTeX_Letter_2Col.zip). The submitted papers can only be in the format of PDF or WORD. Please follow the IEEE Computer Society Press Proceedings Author Guidelines to prepare your papers, respectively. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to attend the workshop and present the paper. All papers must be submitted via the confhub submission system for the SPE workshop (TBD). First time users need to register with the system first (see these instructions for details http://www.servicescongress.org/2014/submission.html). All the accepted papers by the workshops will be included in the Proceedings of the IEEE 10th World Congress on Services (SERVICES 2014) which will be published by IEEE Computer Society. =============== Workshop Chairs =============== - Claudio Agostino Ardagna, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy, claudio.ardagna-AT-unimi.it - Meiko Jensen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, Meiko.Jensen-AT-rub.de - Zhixiong Chen, Mercy College, NY, USA, zchen-AT-mercy.edu - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy, ernesto.damiani-AT-unimi.it ================= Program Committee ================= - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Rasool Asal, Etisalat BT Innovation Centre, UAE - Jens-atthias Bohli, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany - Bud Brügger, Fraunhofer IAO, Germany - Ali Chettih, Pivot Point Security, Mercy College NY, USA - Frances Cleary, Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland - Quiang Duan, Penn State at Abington, USA - Massimo Felici, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, USA - Christopher Frenz, CTO at See-Thru, USA - Atsuhiro Goto, Institute of Information Security, Japan - Nils Gruschka, University of Applied Sciences Kiel, Germany - Marit Hansen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, - Patrick Hung, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada - Luigi Lo Iacono, University of Applied Sciences Cologne, Germany - Florian Kerschbaum, SAP Research Karlsruhe, Germany - Zhiqiang Lin, UT Dallas, USA - Jörg Schwenk, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany - Wei Tan, IBM, USA - Jong Yoon, Mercy College, USA - Yingzhou Zhang, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China =============== Publicity Chair =============== - Fulvio Frati, Università degli studi di Milano, Italy More information available at http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SPE2014/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 17:19:29 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:19:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Why CS must protect its diversity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is quiet right.. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > http://xkcd.com/1320/ (When a network tries to be everyone's one-stop > hub, the Walmart of social interaction... ...it inevitably becomes the > Walmart of social interaction.) > > [image: Walmart] > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more > and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > * > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 17:33:54 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:33:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Application to participate in the meeting in Brazil Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Civil society is already represented within the planning of the Brazil meeting as well as the Steering Committee. However, this email serves to inform you that I am volunteering to attend the meeting and act as Rapporteur for the IGC to report back on meetings in real time. Let me know what your thoughts are. I will also update you daily and at the end of the meeting produce a report on key observations. I think having a team of IGC rapporteurs would be useful and I am willing to volunteer. Best Regards, Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet @amedinagomez Skype: amedinagomez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 17:52:42 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:52:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Carl Bildt chairs a new GlobalCommission on Internet Governance Message-ID: FYI http://www.webpronews.com/global-commiss ion-on-internet-governance-announced-2014-01 ... Cheers, L -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter * Facebook * Twitter * Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jan 22 19:52:24 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:52:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting Message-ID: Dear all, The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: - Is it going to be invitation only? - If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? - There will be travel support? - If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? - There will be remote participation? - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? - Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) +1? Suggestions for more questions? best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marilynscade at hotmail.com Wed Jan 22 20:02:16 2014 From: marilynscade at hotmail.com (Marilyn Cade ) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:02:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting Message-ID: Joana, thanks so much. Adding in a few more : As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Joana Varon Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 To: ; ; Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting Dear all, The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: * Is it going to be invitation only? * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? * There will be travel support? * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? * There will be remote participation? * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) +1? Suggestions for more questions? best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 20:42:31 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:42:31 -0200 Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: - Committee work plan (roadmap) - Participation criteria for the meeting - Meeting agenda - Meeting format - Kind of expected outcomes - Public consultation As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. Best Marília On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > Joana, thanks so much. > > Adding in a few more : > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG > propose how to summarize submissions? > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free > access? > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given > priority? > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joana Varon > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > before 27th meeting > > > > Dear all, > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set > of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order > to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who > gets invited? > * There will be travel support? > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also > be invited? What are the restrictions? > * There will be remote participation? > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of > Brazilian Carnival) > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also > reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or > more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > 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 > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Fri Jan 24 04:41:48 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:41:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Job opportunity at APC: Project Coordinator - internet rights in India, Malaysia and Pakistan Message-ID: <6DF67345-E1CD-425F-94C6-F3233A4A60EC@apc.org> Dear all, Sending you all this call in the case it is of your interest. Please help us with dissemination. Valeria ----------------- Job opportunity at APC: Project Coordinator - protecting freedom of information, expression and association online in India, Malaysia and Pakistan http://www.apc.org/en/news/job-opportunity-apc-project-coordinator-protecting Deadline for applications: 10 February, 2014 Join the APC Communications and Information Policy Programme (CIPP) to coordinate APC’s policy advocacy and capacity building and activities in the project “Networking for freedom online and offline: protecting freedom of information, expression and association on the internet in India, Malaysia and Pakistan”. About the project: As its title illustrates, the overall goal of this initiative is to protect and promote respect for human rights on the internet, particularly the right to information, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of assembly, in three countries. It is being implemented with project partners – BytesForAll Pakistan (B4A), Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (PKKS EMPOWER), Malaysia, and Digital Empower Foundation (DEF) in India. The project coordinator will be responsible for overall project coordination working closely with these three organisations. The specific objectives of the project are to: Build awareness and knowledge among the project’s target groups of internet freedoms as an enabler of human rights and democratisation. Provide human rights defenders (our primary target group) with knowledge, tools, networks and support to respond to internet related human rights violations and to communicate more safely and securely online and Leverage strategic linkages between national, regional and global advocacy for human rights on the internet through making use of opportunities presented by the Internet Governance Forum and the UN’s Human Rights Council, among others. We expect the project will to lead to: Improved recognition and protection of human rights on the internet by the public, civil society organisations, government, the judiciary and human rights bodies in the three countries. Improved understanding, skills and strategies (including institutional policies) among human rights defenders and civil society organisations of how restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of association on the internet operate. Improved capacities among local rights groups in countries to advocate on issues of human rights and the internet over the longer term, including the formation and/or strengthening of multi-stakeholder networks to advocate for internet freedoms. Main purpose of job: The project coordinator will be responsible for the coordination of the overall implementation of this new project building on APC’s ongoing work in the region. This includes all aspects of project oversight and coordination in capacity building, leading policy advocacy strategy, production of training materials, organisation of national consultations and participation in UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) processes, participation in regional and global processes, campaign and advocacy support to national teams, partnership management, supervision of project staff, budget management, report writing and monitoring and evaluation. The project coordinator will also contribute to strengthen the relationship between APC and its members in the region and be CIPP’s main liaison for our policy work. Start date: 1 March 2014 Deadline for applications: February 10, 2014 Tasks and responsibilities: The project coordinator will report to the APC policy programme manager and be responsible for the following tasks and responsibilities: Coordinate overall implementation of the project Coordinate the project’s research outputs Develop and coordinate APC’s regional rights advocacy strategies working closely with APC’s Human Rights specialist Oversee production of training materials and implementation of training strategies and activities for national human rights institutions, human rights defenders and civil society organisations from target countries Facilitate national consultations, regional capacity building and stakeholder participation in the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review Run and present workshops related to human rights on the internet at the regional and global Internet Governance Forum. Develop online resource platforms and communication spaces for the project Oversee production of media and communications outputs in collaboration with the APC communications and media team Establish and maintain positive relationships with project partners, convene project meetings, and establish processes for project meetings and collaboration. Represent the APC, work with members in the region and build strategic partnerships in the field within and outside the region. This may include frequent international travel to participate on specific events and meetings. Supervise project staff (includes management and supervision of contracts with partners and sub-contractors) Budget management Establish an agreed monitoring and evaluation framework for the actions Oversee project financial management, including financial and narrative reporting among project partners Produce and submit reports and project outputs in line with the project reporting guidelines and timelines. Background and experience: An academic, research or advocacy background in ICT/internet policy in a human rights and/or development context At least five years experience working policy advocacy work in relation to ICT/ internet policy and human rights Extensive knowledge of human rights and internet policy and regulation, including knowledge of or experience with human rights mechanisms or processes At least three years experience in project management including campaign coordination, reporting, and people and budget management Enthusiasm for networking and be an inclusive network builder Ability to plan and think strategically Experience and background in civil society networking Knowledge of and contacts with human rights organisations, human rights defenders, democracy activists and internet rights activists is an advantage Other requirements: Experience in working in Pakistan, India and/or Malaysia and/or the Asia region Excellent English writing and oral communication skills, including public speaking experience Good writing skills and experience in writing reports Able to work in a team and under pressure Able to work independently and to manage people mainly via online communications Willing to travel frequently Competent computer and internet skills and experience in working in an online environment The following will provide candidates with further advantage: Ability to communicate in Hindi, Urdu or Bahasa Malaysia is a distinct advantage Remuneration and duration of contract: This is a full time contract for an initial twelve-month period (renewable depending on performance and availability of funding). Remuneration is based on APC’s salary scale for the position for project coordinator. Short-listed candidates will receive specific information on the salary range on request. Location: The incumbent must live and work in the region and must have excellent internet access. APC provides an equipment allowance but require staff to use their own computers. APC is a truly virtual organisation and does not have a physical headquarters. We do our work online. For this position we particularly encourage candidates from the global South. How to apply: Please send a CV and a covering letter in English that illustrates your interest in the position. You should include the following information: Your experience with human rights and/or internet rights Your ICT policy experience Your experience in advocacy and capacity building Your experience in networking and partnership building Your experience in coordinating campaigns targeting diverse constituencies Your experience in working in Pakistan, India and/or Malaysia and or the Asia region Your experience or expectations around building the capacity of activists for whom sometimes the subject area will be relatively new Your experience around building interaction between human rights actors and actors involved in the access and use of internet for social justice Your background in project management and team coordination, specifically in an international and/or online context Your computer skills Where you live Languages you speak and write Other information you think might be of importance to our assessment of your application Three references: names, relationship, contact details; at least one of these should be related to project or campaign that you have managed. Please send this information via email with ‘Networking for freedom online and offline project coordinator’ in the subject line to: jobs at apc.org by February 10 2014 0900 UTC. Please note only short-listed candidates will be contacted. (END/2014) ------------- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 24 15:16:45 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:16:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Preparation for Executive Committee mtg Message-ID: Dear all, The agenda of the upcoming meeting of the executive committee is still open for comments and suggestions, but it is gaining shape. Joana and others proposed some important questions already to be forwarded to the meeting. In addition to that, I think that it would be important if we could propose guidelines on how to address the most important points. There is still a lot "in the air" and it may be difficult to make detailed proposals at this stage, but it may also mean an opportunity if we are proactive. In topics like participation criteria, public consultation and format of the meeting for instance, maybe we could point out what would be important from a CS standpoint. What do you think? Best Marília 9.00 - 9.20 - Welcome and introductions. 9.20 - 10.00 - Work Plan (meetings, teleconferences, relation with the secretariat,etc.) 10.00 - 10.45 - April Meeting agenda (main topics) 10.45 - 11.00 - coffee/tea break 11.00 - 12.30 - Participation criteria 12.30 - 14.00 - Lunch break 14.00 - 14.30 - Expected outcomes 14.30 - 15.00 - Public consultation 15.00 - 15.15 - coffee/tea break 15.15 - 16.30 - Meeting format/meeting agenda 16.30 - 17.00 - Wrap-up, Next steps. 17.00 - Adjourn -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 24 17:38:48 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:38:48 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Preparation for Executive Committee mtg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can a commitment to excellent RP for the meeting be requested at this stage, please? From where I sit, I don't know when it would be considered appropriate, but, from considering where most of us will be sitting, which will probably not be in Brazil... I think that this is a basic logistical preparation which must be built-in to the meeting from the beginning. We are counting on you to ensure our inclusion. Thanks! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 24 January 2014 14:16, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The agenda of the upcoming meeting of the executive committee is still > open for comments and suggestions, but it is gaining shape. > > > > Joana and others proposed some important questions already to be forwarded > to the meeting. In addition to that, I think that it would be important if > we could propose guidelines on how to address the most important points. > > > > There is still a lot "in the air" and it may be difficult to make detailed > proposals at this stage, but it may also mean an opportunity if we are > proactive. In topics like participation criteria, public consultation and > format of the meeting for instance, maybe we could point out what would be > important from a CS standpoint. > > What do you think? > > > Best > > Marília > > > > > 9.00 - 9.20 - Welcome and introductions. > > > > 9.20 - 10.00 - Work Plan (meetings, teleconferences, relation with the > secretariat,etc.) > > 10.00 - 10.45 - April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > 10.45 - 11.00 - coffee/tea break > > 11.00 - 12.30 - Participation criteria > > > > 12.30 - 14.00 - Lunch break > > > > 14.00 - 14.30 - Expected outcomes > > 14.30 - 15.00 - Public consultation > > 15.00 - 15.15 - coffee/tea break > > 15.15 - 16.30 - Meeting format/meeting agenda > > 16.30 - 17.00 - Wrap-up, Next steps. > > 17.00 - Adjourn > > > > -- > *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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 05:11:07 2014 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:11:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Preparation for Executive Committee mtg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, Apologies in advance if it turns out that I am off topic. However, after several discussions and exchanges at the DRC and with certain actors in the countries of Central Africa , the major concerns of the show the following points regarding paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda : *a) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities.* *b) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.* *c) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries.* *d) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.* *e) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.* *f) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes.* *g) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.* *h) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.* *73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that end, the proposed IGF could:* *a) Build on the existing structures of Internet governance, with special emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process – governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. * *b) Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review.* *c) **Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use logistical support. * While the evolution of thematic exchanges are not the same as at the African sub- regions and other continents, but the fact is bitter because over 60% of actors are not very well impregnated the Forum process on governance internet both in official institutions at the level of ICT companies , ICT service providers ... despite the efforts that we continue to deploy regularly. I propose that the NCUC benefits each event organizing shows cases in this direction with its members. This allows to identify gaps to bring them problematic to be placed on the agenda for future meetings . *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2014/1/24 Marilia Maciel > Dear all, > > > > The agenda of the upcoming meeting of the executive committee is still > open for comments and suggestions, but it is gaining shape. > > > > Joana and others proposed some important questions already to be forwarded > to the meeting. In addition to that, I think that it would be important if > we could propose guidelines on how to address the most important points. > > > > There is still a lot "in the air" and it may be difficult to make detailed > proposals at this stage, but it may also mean an opportunity if we are > proactive. In topics like participation criteria, public consultation and > format of the meeting for instance, maybe we could point out what would be > important from a CS standpoint. > > What do you think? > > > Best > > Marília > > > > > 9.00 - 9.20 - Welcome and introductions. > > > > 9.20 - 10.00 - Work Plan (meetings, teleconferences, relation with the > secretariat,etc.) > > 10.00 - 10.45 - April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > 10.45 - 11.00 - coffee/tea break > > 11.00 - 12.30 - Participation criteria > > > > 12.30 - 14.00 - Lunch break > > > > 14.00 - 14.30 - Expected outcomes > > 14.30 - 15.00 - Public consultation > > 15.00 - 15.15 - coffee/tea break > > 15.15 - 16.30 - Meeting format/meeting agenda > > 16.30 - 17.00 - Wrap-up, Next steps. > > 17.00 - Adjourn > > > > -- > *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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 06:53:14 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:53:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance 2020 - Geopolitics and the Future of the Internet (US position) References: <17940041.12667@subscriptions.fcg.gov> Message-ID: > > Source: US Department of State > > Internet Governance 2020 - Geopolitics and the Future of the Internet > > > Remarks > Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda > Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs > Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) > Washington, DC > January 23, 2014 > > Thank you very much. I appreciate the invitation to help frame and initiate the discussion that the experts on the panel will conduct. It is an impressive panel with folks that have lived through the more than decade long debate over Internet governance, what it means, and where it is headed. I am familiar with their work and it helps inform my own. > > Let me start at the end and work my way backwards. Last week, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and I visited Mexico to conduct a series of meetings on bilateral and multilateral technology and telecommunications issues. In the process we took the opportunity to visit with a group of young entrepreneurs who were using technology and the global Internet as a platform for developing new businesses using the assistance and guidance provided to them at Telefonica’s tech accelerator, an organization called WAYRA. > > As government officials, we were the only people in the room wearing suits and we raised the average age somewhat, but we were thrilled to see what was happening and what these young Mexican entrepreneurs were doing. They were working on innovative ways to link parents with teachers, retailers with customers and doctors with patients. The ideas were innovative, the energy was high, and the enthusiasm boundless. > > As public servants, those of us in this Administration work with our friends and colleagues at home and abroad to create a legal and regulatory framework domestically and internationally that enables the kind of optimism and pursuit of happiness that we saw at Wayra in Mexico. > > Underlying the capacity of those young people to innovate and reach the world without having to jump through regulatory hoops or ask anyone for permission are two concepts U.S. policymakers and others seek to preserve – an open Internet, governed by a broad range of decision makers, including industry, government and civil society and free-market competition in telecommunications networks. > > The subject of this panel is (1) how to understand and help evolve the framework of Internet governance to increase the inclusion of those who feel that they are left out and (2) how to defend the concepts of diffuse, multistakeholder governance from challenges to its legitimacy and from efforts to change the way the Internet operates in a manner that would make it harder for those young people in Mexico -- and others in the world like them – to succeed. > > In the President’s speech from Friday on the Administration’s review of U.S. signals intelligence practices, he made clear our commitment to respecting the privacy of all people, regardless of nationality. The reforms the President announced demonstrate how public debate occurs in democratic societies and how we defend security and privacy, while limiting our intelligence collection to specific purposes. As the President said, U.S. collection is for a defined list of purposes – the United States is not indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary folks. The fact that we are taking steps to reform certain intelligence programs demonstrates the respect that we have for the rights of individuals, regardless of nationality. I believe that the President has made a compelling case to the world. > > Some foreign observers have chosen to conflate the issue of intelligence gathering with U.S. positions on Internet governance, posing new challenges that could disrupt the current multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance. In fact, these issues are not the same. Nevertheless, given this conflation, the Administration reaffirms our commitment to the open Internet and the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance. We will redouble our efforts to strengthen and make more inclusive its policy-making, standards setting, and governance organizations. > > We are aware that some people in the world are unhappy with the status quo of Internet governance, but we believe that any change should come in the form of more, not less, decentralized and inclusive participation of people, institutions, firms, experts, private citizens, and governments in multistakeholder institutions. > > Last fall, the leaders of the Internet institutions that are so vital to the reliable operations of the Internet issued what is now known in our community as the Montevideo Statement. The statement, noteworthy for the unanimity expressed by the technical community and useful for engaging an important conversation, addressed four issues. First, the group expressed concern that recent surveillances allegations had undermined user trust. Second, they expressed a desire for a community effort to evolve multistakeholder cooperation to better address Internet governance challenges. Third, they called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and the IANA functions, a set of activities related to management of the Domain Name System (DNS). Finally, they stressed the need for transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Helpfully, and importantly, the Montevideo Statement launched this conversation from the heart of the multistakeholder system rather than an intergovernmental body. We appreciate the thoughtful leadership of the technical community and we hope their efforts will spur further consideration of how we can continue to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive while maintaining the stability of the open and innovative Internet. > > The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is one venue that is fully open and, therefore, particularly well suited to address these issues in the most global and inclusive fashion. When the next IGF convenes this September in Istanbul, we expect the Internet community will further this conversation. > > More immediately, Estonian President Ilves is chairing a High Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms that will produce a draft roadmap for a way forward on these issues in a matter of months. This panel includes a number of luminaries from government, business, and civil society; we are hopeful it can constructively contribute to this year’s conversation that is unfolding in multiple venues and we believe that any gathering on the subject should strongly consider the group’s views in its dialogue. > > One such gathering will occur this April, when the Brazilians, in coordination and consultation with the Internet community worldwide will host the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance.” Along with many of you, we are following the developments of this meeting and we’ve been in touch with the Brazilian government as we consider the best potential role for the U.S. government. We are pleased to see announcements from the organizers that a multistakeholder structure will plan and execute the meeting. And from what we can tell, the Brazilian government and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee appear to be reaching out to a wide range of stakeholders to shape the meeting. These are good signs. > > While there’s still much to know about how this meeting will unfold and what it’s lasting impacts might be, I believe that the meeting holds promise in advancing the global community’s understanding of Internet governance if: (1) the agenda is developed in a truly multistakeholder fashion; (2) participation at the meeting is broad and inclusive; and (3) any follow on activity is guided by, and ultimately supportive of, the multistakeholder system rather than an intergovernmental mechanism of centrally imposed regulation or mandates. > > Beyond the conference in Sao Paolo and many other intervening discussions, this fall, ITU member states will gather in Busan, Korea for the quadrennial ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. During this conference, the members will elect new leadership and establish the work of the ITU for the next four years. It’s a very important conference in many respects, including in areas of great interest to the United States such as global spectrum management and the ways in which the world can leverage communications services to promote economic and social development. > > Beyond the Plenipotentiary Conference affirming the vital role for the ITU in the world’s telecommunications ecosystem, we would also like to seek a greater role for the ITU in helping developing nations address broadband deployment. We expect, however, that there will be a number of proposals at the conference on more controversial topics, such as Internet governance and cybersecurity, and we further expect that some of these proposals will be at odds with the multistakeholder principles shared by so many in the Internet community, both in the United States and abroad. > > Ultimately, we think it’s better for the ITU and to focus on what needs to be accomplished to increase affordable access to communications networks and encourage the further deployment of those networks. That is an honorable, manageable, and tangible task. Any attempt to use the ITU to revive proposals to resolve questions of Internet governance that are better dealt with in multistakeholder settings raises the possibility of divisive outcomes. It is our sincere hope that will not happen. > > We will oppose proposals that threaten the current Internet governance model by limiting the input of non-governmental stakeholders or substituting the existing system with one that only governments control. We will also not support new, centrally imposed regulations, and we will work with countries that share our views to push back respectfully on any such initiative. > > We would greatly prefer a conference where the ITU works within its mandate to promote the benefits of telecommunication for member states and their citizens, especially those from the developing world. Therefore, we intend to develop a number of proactive initiatives that shape the debate that will help build a constructive agenda for the ITU. The ITU can help nations put policies and programs in place to support the buildout of broadband networks. It can advise and consult with nations on proper procedures to respond to natural disasters that destroy communications infrastructure. And it can guide and help nations as they move through their analog to digital transitions and reorganize their spectrum management to provide for participation in the world’s mobile communications revolution. > > And there are multiple other initiatives that we are eager to work with other nations and the ITU to ensure that the Union continues to thrive and contribute to the prosperity and wellbeing of its member states and their citizens. > > I believe that the direction our President has given us, and that Secretary Kerry is executing, promote respectful engagement combined with a vigorous defense of our national interest and values. We intend to work in that spirit on this issue going forward. > > I believe that this year presents a perfect opportunity for all of us to work together and tell the story of the Internet’s incredible, multistakeholder success, and to ultimately preserve and strengthen an open and innovative Internet as it continues to evolve to include all of the world’s people and communities. > > > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 08:58:26 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:58:26 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, IGC, Diplo and APC. Best, Rafik 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to > represent > > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the > > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, > this > > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on > other > > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are > > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that > have > > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the > >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to > >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and > input. > >> > >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we > >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling > for > >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, > and > >> we will look forward to getting wide input. > >> > >> > >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > >> > >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for > >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for > >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great > needs > >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing > >> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance > >> might be useful. > >> > >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to > >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would > >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its > >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to > >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > >> > >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of > >> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations > until > >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion > on > >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for > >> involvement. > >> > >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the > >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and > >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional > >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of > interest – > >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows > >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong > >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and > >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions > until > >> the co ordination group is fully populated. > >> > >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... > >> > >> > >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, > >> but also for any future CS representation). > >> > >> We present three different options here. > >> > >> OPTION ONE - VOTING > >> > >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with > >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And > >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where > suddenly > >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support > >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for > us > >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our > >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And > setting > >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly > >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which > >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) > >> > >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. > >> > >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > >> > >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter > of > >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some > >> other examples. > >> > >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. > >> > >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > >> > >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so > >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: > >> > >> 2 included known trolls. > >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only > >> one or two active members. > >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair > >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual > >> making decisions > >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > >> > >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when > >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case > for > >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations > >> because they weren’t randomly selected. > >> > >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a > >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important > >> matters of representation best not left to chance. > >> > >> > >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > >> > >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, > >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can > >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable > and > >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That > >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could > undertake > >> when in place. > >> > >> > >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to > >> and sorted out. > >> > >> CRITERIA > >> > >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in > >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate > >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will > >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these > >> under consideration > >> > >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all > regions > >> covered? > >> > >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > >> business)? > >> > >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > >> business or government in its categorization? > >> > >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one > of > >> the existing members? > >> > >> > >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent > and > >> accountable to its members. > >> > >> > >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and > >> knowledge of internet governance issues > >> > >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Over to everyone for comments. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Jan 25 10:03:34 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:03:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> Hi, (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category mismatch.. I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined groups should take a look at it. IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a representational role. But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice of the groups. avri On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Nnenna, > > as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, > IGC, Diplo and APC. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma > > > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to > represent > > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement > with the > > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the > inclusion, this > > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good > standing on other > > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where > there are > > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or > groups that have > > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members > of the > >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It > relates to > >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments > and input. > >> > >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after > which we > >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a > feeling for > >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and > digest, and > >> we will look forward to getting wide input. > >> > >> > >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > >> > >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for > >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for > >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other > great needs > >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing > >> communication between groups working in the area of internet > governance > >> might be useful. > >> > >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the > group to > >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice > would > >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its > >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to > >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society > representation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > >> > >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of > >> different parties and it was decided to defer further > considerations until > >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some > discussion on > >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible > criteria for > >> involvement. > >> > >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to > enlarge the > >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could > remain and > >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For > additional > >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of > interest – > >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That > allows > >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a > strong > >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good > step, and > >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such > questions until > >> the co ordination group is fully populated. > >> > >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to > select.... > >> > >> > >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co > ordination group, > >> but also for any future CS representation). > >> > >> We present three different options here. > >> > >> OPTION ONE - VOTING > >> > >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with > >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is > out? And > >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where > suddenly > >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in > support > >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The > context for us > >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our > >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. > And setting > >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a > fairly > >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which > >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be > included) > >> > >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. > >> > >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > >> > >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the > Charter of > >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may > be some > >> other examples. > >> > >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. > >> > >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > >> > >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 > or so > >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: > >> > >> 2 included known trolls. > >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis > of only > >> one or two active members. > >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair > >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one > individual > >> making decisions > >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > >> > >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when > >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in > this case for > >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations > >> because they weren’t randomly selected. > >> > >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a > >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are > important > >> matters of representation best not left to chance. > >> > >> > >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > >> > >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical > community, > >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation > we can > >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, > accountable and > >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the > Nomcom. That > >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could > undertake > >> when in place. > >> > >> > >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be > agreed to > >> and sorted out. > >> > >> CRITERIA > >> > >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed > these in > >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate > >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, > they will > >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left > these > >> under consideration > >> > >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - > all regions > >> covered? > >> > >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > >> business)? > >> > >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > >> business or government in its categorization? > >> > >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered > by one of > >> the existing members? > >> > >> > >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately > transparent and > >> accountable to its members. > >> > >> > >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and > >> knowledge of internet governance issues > >> > >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Over to everyone for comments. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jan 25 12:06:12 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:06:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> Message-ID: <52E3EF04.9040306@wzb.eu> Hi Avri, given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would you then go about the current legitimacy hole? jeanette Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria: > Hi, > > (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) > > As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category mismatch.. > > I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. > > BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the > leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys > into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined > groups should take a look at it. > > IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and > until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a > representational role. > > But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, > distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in > Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being > twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them > to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active > participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice > of the groups. > > > avri > > > On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Nnenna, >> >> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, >> IGC, Diplo and APC. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma > > >> >> How about a "network nomcom"? >> >> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of >> improvement of what we have now. >> >> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of >> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. >> >> Here is my suggestion: >> >> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions >> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) >> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. >> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, >> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom >> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed >> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their >> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may >> decide >> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified >> person/s >> for the task at hand. >> >> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: >> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition >> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the >> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called >> for >> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem >> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" >> >> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, >> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each >> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies >> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom >> >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: >> > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to >> represent >> > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement >> with the >> > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the >> inclusion, this >> > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good >> standing on other >> > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >> > >> > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where >> there are >> > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or >> groups that have >> > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov >> issues. >> > >> > --srs (iPad) >> > >> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members >> of the >> >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It >> relates to >> >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments >> and input. >> >> >> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after >> which we >> >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a >> feeling for >> >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and >> digest, and >> >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >> >> >> >> >> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >> >> >> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing >> representatives for >> >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly >> advisable for >> >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other >> great needs >> >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >> >> communication between groups working in the area of internet >> governance >> >> might be useful. >> >> >> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the >> group to >> >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice >> would >> >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >> >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >> >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society >> representation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >> >> >> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >> >> different parties and it was decided to defer further >> considerations until >> >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some >> discussion on >> >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible >> criteria for >> >> involvement. >> >> >> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to >> enlarge the >> >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could >> remain and >> >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For >> additional >> >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >> interest – >> >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That >> allows >> >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a >> strong >> >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good >> step, and >> >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such >> questions until >> >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >> >> >> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to >> select.... >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co >> ordination group, >> >> but also for any future CS representation). >> >> >> >> We present three different options here. >> >> >> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >> >> >> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult >> with >> >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is >> out? And >> >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where >> suddenly >> >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in >> support >> >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The >> context for us >> >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >> >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. >> And setting >> >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a >> fairly >> >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask >> which >> >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be >> included) >> >> >> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >> >> >> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >> >> >> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the >> Charter of >> >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may >> be some >> >> other examples. >> >> >> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have >> reservations. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >> >> >> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 >> or so >> >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >> >> >> >> 2 included known trolls. >> >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis >> of only >> >> one or two active members. >> >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >> >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one >> individual >> >> making decisions >> >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >> >> >> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >> >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in >> this case for >> >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from >> deliberations >> >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >> >> >> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context >> of a >> >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are >> important >> >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >> >> >> >> >> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >> >> >> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical >> community, >> >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation >> we can >> >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, >> accountable and >> >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the >> Nomcom. That >> >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could >> undertake >> >> when in place. >> >> >> >> >> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be >> agreed to >> >> and sorted out. >> >> >> >> CRITERIA >> >> >> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed >> these in >> >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >> >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, >> they will >> >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left >> these >> >> under consideration >> >> >> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - >> all regions >> >> covered? >> >> >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as >> opposed to >> >> business)? >> >> >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, >> academic, >> >> business or government in its categorization? >> >> >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered >> by one of >> >> the existing members? >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately >> transparent and >> >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> >> >> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement >> in and >> >> knowledge of internet governance issues >> >> >> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to >> change. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Over to everyone for comments. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> 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 avri at ella.com Sat Jan 25 12:30:32 2014 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:30:32 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments Message-ID: Hi, I don't really know how IGC finds its way back to a cordial functionality in diversity that enables legitimacy. One of the many reasons I did not put myself forward as a candidate for anything.  But being eternally hopeful, except for when I lapse into despair, I think it could be done by a reasonable, dedicated and devoted set of coordinators and a little honeymoon good will from us a all. Which makes me think, I would really like to see our candidates' answer to your question. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Jeanette Hofmann Date:01/25/2014 12:06 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments Hi Avri, given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would you then go about the current legitimacy hole? jeanette Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria: > Hi, > > (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) > > As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category mismatch.. > > I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. > > BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the > leadership.  Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys > into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined > groups should take a look at it. > > IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and > until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a > representational role. > > But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, > distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in > Ig.  So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being > twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them > to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active > participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice > of the groups. > > > avri > > > On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Nnenna, >> >> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, >> IGC, Diplo and APC. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma > > >> >>     How about a "network nomcom"? >> >>     Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of >>     improvement of what we have now. >> >>     What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of >>     different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. >> >>     Here is my suggestion: >> >>     1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions >>     with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) >>     2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. >>     3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, >>     a person/persons to  represent it in  a nomcom >>     4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed >>     5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their >>     networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may >> decide >>       the method that is best suited to  them to appoint qualified >> person/s >>       for the task at hand. >> >>     What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: >>     1. Its members are  sent by their constituent network/coalition >>     2.  Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom  person based on the >>     person's expertise  on the subject for which CS reps are being called >>     for >>     3. Networks/coalitions are free to  use whatever methods they deem >>     best to  select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" >> >>     In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, >>     and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each >>     time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies >>     the Chair or their rep on the NomCom >> >> >>     Best >> >>     Nnenna >> >> >>     On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian >     > wrote: >>      > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to >>     represent >>      > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement >>     with the >>      > caucus and prior track record in igov.  [And to increase the >>     inclusion, this >>      > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good >>     standing on other >>      > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >>      > >>      > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where >>     there are >>      > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or >>     groups that have >>      > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov >> issues. >>      > >>      > --srs (iPad) >>      > >>      >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" >     > wrote: >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among  members >>     of the >>      >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It >>     relates to >>      >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments >>     and input. >>      >> >>      >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after >>     which we >>      >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a >>     feeling for >>      >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and >>     digest, and >>      >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>      >> >>      >> There certainly was in the context of appointing >> representatives for >>      >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly >> advisable for >>      >> functions such as MAG nominations.  Perhaps there are no other >>     great needs >>      >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>      >> communication between groups working in the area of internet >>     governance >>      >> might be useful. >>      >> >>      >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the >>     group to >>      >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice >>     would >>      >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>      >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >>      >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society >>     representation. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>      >> >>      >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >>      >> different parties and it was decided to defer further >>     considerations until >>      >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some >>     discussion  on >>      >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible >>     criteria for >>      >> involvement. >>      >> >>      >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to >>       enlarge the >>      >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could >>     remain and >>      >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For >>     additional >>      >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >>     interest – >>      >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That >>     allows >>      >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a >>     strong >>      >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good >>     step, and >>      >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such >>     questions until >>      >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>      >> >>      >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to >>     select.... >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co >>     ordination group, >>      >> but also for any future CS representation). >>      >> >>      >> We present three different options here. >>      >> >>      >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>      >> >>      >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult >> with >>      >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is >>     out? And >>      >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where >>     suddenly >>      >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in >>     support >>      >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The >>     context for us >>      >> here is that, without a consolidated  membership list of all our >>      >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. >>     And setting >>      >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a >>     fairly >>      >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask >> which >>      >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be >>     included) >>      >> >>      >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>      >> >>      >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>      >> >>      >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the >>     Charter of >>      >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may >>     be some >>      >> other examples. >>      >> >>      >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have >> reservations. >>      >> >>      >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>      >> >>      >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 >>     or so >>      >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>      >> >>      >> 2 included known trolls. >>      >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis >>     of only >>      >> one or two active members. >>      >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>      >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one >>     individual >>      >> making decisions >>      >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>      >> >>      >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>      >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in >>     this case for >>      >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from >> deliberations >>      >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>      >> >>      >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context >> of a >>      >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are >>     important >>      >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>      >> >>      >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical >>     community, >>      >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation >>     we can >>      >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, >>     accountable and >>      >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the >>     Nomcom. That >>      >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could >>     undertake >>      >> when in place. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be >>     agreed to >>      >> and sorted out. >>      >> >>      >> CRITERIA >>      >> >>      >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed >>     these in >>      >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>      >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, >>     they will >>      >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left >>     these >>      >> under consideration >>      >> >>      >> 1.       Is it a coalition which is globally representative - >>     all regions >>      >> covered? >>      >> >>      >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as >> opposed to >>      >> business)? >>      >> >>      >> 3.  Would it more properly fit under technical community, >> academic, >>      >> business or government in its categorization? >>      >> >>      >> 4.  Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered >>     by one of >>      >> the existing  members? >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately >>     transparent and >>      >> accountable to its members. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement >> in and >>      >> knowledge of internet governance issues >>      >> >>      >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to >> change. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> Over to everyone for comments. >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> Ian Peter >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> >>      >> ____________________________________________________________ >>      >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>      >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>      >> >>      >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>      >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>      >> >>      >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>      > >> >>     ____________________________________________________________ >>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 14:18:56 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:18:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to Avri's comment. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > I don't really know how IGC finds its way back to a cordial functionality > in diversity that enables legitimacy. One of the many reasons I did not put > myself forward as a candidate for anything. > > But being eternally hopeful, except for when I lapse into despair, I think > it could be done by a reasonable, dedicated and devoted set of coordinators > and a little honeymoon good will from us a all. > > Which makes me think, I would really like to see our candidates' answer to > your question. > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Date:01/25/2014 12:06 (GMT-05:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group > - call for comments > > Hi Avri, > > given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would > you then go about the current legitimacy hole? > > jeanette > > Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria: > > Hi, > > > > (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) > > > > As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category > mismatch.. > > > > I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. > > > > BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the > > leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys > > into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined > > groups should take a look at it. > > > > IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and > > until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a > > representational role. > > > > But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, > > distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in > > Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being > > twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them > > to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active > > participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice > > of the groups. > > > > > > avri > > > > > > On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Nnenna, > >> > >> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, > >> IGC, Diplo and APC. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma >> > > >> > >> How about a "network nomcom"? > >> > >> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > >> improvement of what we have now. > >> > >> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > >> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > >> > >> Here is my suggestion: > >> > >> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other > networks/coalitions > >> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > >> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > >> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within > itself, > >> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > >> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > >> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > >> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may > >> decide > >> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified > >> person/s > >> for the task at hand. > >> > >> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > >> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > >> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > >> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being > called > >> for > >> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > >> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > >> > >> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 > year, > >> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. > Each > >> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > >> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > >> > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Nnenna > >> > >> > >> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: > >> > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to > >> represent > >> > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement > >> with the > >> > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the > >> inclusion, this > >> > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good > >> standing on other > >> > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > >> > > >> > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where > >> there are > >> > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or > >> groups that have > >> > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov > >> issues. > >> > > >> > --srs (iPad) > >> > > >> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members > >> of the > >> >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It > >> relates to > >> >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments > >> and input. > >> >> > >> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after > >> which we > >> >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a > >> feeling for > >> >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and > >> digest, and > >> >> we will look forward to getting wide input. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > >> >> > >> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing > >> representatives for > >> >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly > >> advisable for > >> >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other > >> great needs > >> >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing > >> >> communication between groups working in the area of internet > >> governance > >> >> might be useful. > >> >> > >> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the > >> group to > >> >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice > >> would > >> >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its > >> >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead > to > >> >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society > >> representation. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > >> >> > >> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number > of > >> >> different parties and it was decided to defer further > >> considerations until > >> >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some > >> discussion on > >> >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible > >> criteria for > >> >> involvement. > >> >> > >> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to > >> enlarge the > >> >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could > >> remain and > >> >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For > >> additional > >> >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of > >> interest – > >> >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That > >> allows > >> >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a > >> strong > >> >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good > >> step, and > >> >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such > >> questions until > >> >> the co ordination group is fully populated. > >> >> > >> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to > >> select.... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co > >> ordination group, > >> >> but also for any future CS representation). > >> >> > >> >> We present three different options here. > >> >> > >> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING > >> >> > >> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult > >> with > >> >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is > >> out? And > >> >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where > >> suddenly > >> >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in > >> support > >> >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The > >> context for us > >> >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our > >> >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. > >> And setting > >> >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a > >> fairly > >> >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask > >> which > >> >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be > >> included) > >> >> > >> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. > >> >> > >> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > >> >> > >> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the > >> Charter of > >> >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may > >> be some > >> >> other examples. > >> >> > >> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have > >> reservations. > >> >> > >> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > >> >> > >> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 > >> or so > >> >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: > >> >> > >> >> 2 included known trolls. > >> >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis > >> of only > >> >> one or two active members. > >> >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair > >> >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one > >> individual > >> >> making decisions > >> >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > >> >> > >> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when > >> >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in > >> this case for > >> >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from > >> deliberations > >> >> because they weren’t randomly selected. > >> >> > >> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context > >> of a > >> >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are > >> important > >> >> matters of representation best not left to chance. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > >> >> > >> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical > >> community, > >> >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation > >> we can > >> >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, > >> accountable and > >> >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the > >> Nomcom. That > >> >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could > >> undertake > >> >> when in place. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be > >> agreed to > >> >> and sorted out. > >> >> > >> >> CRITERIA > >> >> > >> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed > >> these in > >> >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate > >> >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, > >> they will > >> >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left > >> these > >> >> under consideration > >> >> > >> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - > >> all regions > >> >> covered? > >> >> > >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as > >> opposed to > >> >> business)? > >> >> > >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, > >> academic, > >> >> business or government in its categorization? > >> >> > >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered > >> by one of > >> >> the existing members? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately > >> transparent and > >> >> accountable to its members. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement > >> in and > >> >> knowledge of internet governance issues > >> >> > >> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to > >> change. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Over to everyone for comments. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Ian Peter > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >> > >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >> > >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jan 25 17:09:07 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:09:07 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <52E3EF04.9040306@wzb.eu> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> <52E3EF04.9040306@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52E43603.9080309@cafonso.ca> Better to rise like a phoenix than as a bunch of zombies. :) I think the vision of a joint group derived from the IGC ashes and a BB with the legitimation of a BB coordination is something we should support. frt rgds --c.a. On 01/25/2014 03:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Avri, > > given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would > you then go about the current legitimacy hole? > > jeanette > > Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria: >> Hi, >> >> (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) >> >> As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category >> mismatch.. >> >> I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. >> >> BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the >> leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys >> into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined >> groups should take a look at it. >> >> IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and >> until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a >> representational role. >> >> But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, >> distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in >> Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being >> twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them >> to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active >> participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice >> of the groups. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Nnenna, >>> >>> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, >>> IGC, Diplo and APC. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma >> > >>> >>> How about a "network nomcom"? >>> >>> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of >>> improvement of what we have now. >>> >>> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of >>> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. >>> >>> Here is my suggestion: >>> >>> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other >>> networks/coalitions >>> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) >>> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. >>> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within >>> itself, >>> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom >>> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed >>> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their >>> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may >>> decide >>> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified >>> person/s >>> for the task at hand. >>> >>> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: >>> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition >>> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the >>> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being >>> called >>> for >>> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem >>> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" >>> >>> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 >>> year, >>> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. >>> Each >>> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies >>> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: >>> > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to >>> represent >>> > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement >>> with the >>> > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the >>> inclusion, this >>> > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good >>> standing on other >>> > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >>> > >>> > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where >>> there are >>> > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or >>> groups that have >>> > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov >>> issues. >>> > >>> > --srs (iPad) >>> > >>> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members >>> of the >>> >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It >>> relates to >>> >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments >>> and input. >>> >> >>> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after >>> which we >>> >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a >>> feeling for >>> >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and >>> digest, and >>> >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>> >> >>> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing >>> representatives for >>> >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly >>> advisable for >>> >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other >>> great needs >>> >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>> >> communication between groups working in the area of internet >>> governance >>> >> might be useful. >>> >> >>> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the >>> group to >>> >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice >>> would >>> >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>> >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively >>> lead to >>> >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society >>> representation. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>> >> >>> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a >>> number of >>> >> different parties and it was decided to defer further >>> considerations until >>> >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some >>> discussion on >>> >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible >>> criteria for >>> >> involvement. >>> >> >>> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to >>> enlarge the >>> >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could >>> remain and >>> >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For >>> additional >>> >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >>> interest – >>> >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That >>> allows >>> >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a >>> strong >>> >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good >>> step, and >>> >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such >>> questions until >>> >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>> >> >>> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to >>> select.... >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co >>> ordination group, >>> >> but also for any future CS representation). >>> >> >>> >> We present three different options here. >>> >> >>> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>> >> >>> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult >>> with >>> >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is >>> out? And >>> >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where >>> suddenly >>> >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in >>> support >>> >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The >>> context for us >>> >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >>> >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. >>> And setting >>> >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a >>> fairly >>> >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask >>> which >>> >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be >>> included) >>> >> >>> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>> >> >>> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>> >> >>> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the >>> Charter of >>> >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may >>> be some >>> >> other examples. >>> >> >>> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have >>> reservations. >>> >> >>> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>> >> >>> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 >>> or so >>> >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>> >> >>> >> 2 included known trolls. >>> >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis >>> of only >>> >> one or two active members. >>> >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>> >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one >>> individual >>> >> making decisions >>> >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>> >> >>> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>> >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in >>> this case for >>> >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from >>> deliberations >>> >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>> >> >>> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context >>> of a >>> >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are >>> important >>> >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>> >> >>> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical >>> community, >>> >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation >>> we can >>> >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, >>> accountable and >>> >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the >>> Nomcom. That >>> >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could >>> undertake >>> >> when in place. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be >>> agreed to >>> >> and sorted out. >>> >> >>> >> CRITERIA >>> >> >>> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed >>> these in >>> >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>> >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, >>> they will >>> >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left >>> these >>> >> under consideration >>> >> >>> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - >>> all regions >>> >> covered? >>> >> >>> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as >>> opposed to >>> >> business)? >>> >> >>> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, >>> academic, >>> >> business or government in its categorization? >>> >> >>> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered >>> by one of >>> >> the existing members? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately >>> transparent and >>> >> accountable to its members. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement >>> in and >>> >> knowledge of internet governance issues >>> >> >>> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to >>> change. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Over to everyone for comments. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Ian Peter >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> 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 avri at acm.org Sat Jan 25 17:30:40 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:30:40 -0500 Subject: [] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <52E43603.9080309@cafonso.ca> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> <52E3EF04.9040306@wzb.eu> <52E43603.9080309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52E43B10.20905@acm.org> Hi, That's a good idea to. Perhaps BB is the phoenix. avri On 25-Jan-14 17:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Better to rise like a phoenix than as a bunch of zombies. :) > > I think the vision of a joint group derived from the IGC ashes and a BB > with the legitimation of a BB coordination is something we should support. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 01/25/2014 03:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would >> you then go about the current legitimacy hole? >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) >>> >>> As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category >>> mismatch.. >>> >>> I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. >>> >>> BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the >>> leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys >>> into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined >>> groups should take a look at it. >>> >>> IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and >>> until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a >>> representational role. >>> >>> But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, >>> distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in >>> Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being >>> twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them >>> to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active >>> participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice >>> of the groups. >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Nnenna, >>>> >>>> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, >>>> IGC, Diplo and APC. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma >>> > >>>> >>>> How about a "network nomcom"? >>>> >>>> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a >>>> kind of >>>> improvement of what we have now. >>>> >>>> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of >>>> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. >>>> >>>> Here is my suggestion: >>>> >>>> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other >>>> networks/coalitions >>>> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) >>>> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. >>>> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within >>>> itself, >>>> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom >>>> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed >>>> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by >>>> their >>>> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may >>>> decide >>>> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified >>>> person/s >>>> for the task at hand. >>>> >>>> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: >>>> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition >>>> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the >>>> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being >>>> called >>>> for >>>> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem >>>> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" >>>> >>>> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 >>>> year, >>>> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. >>>> Each >>>> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies >>>> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> > wrote: >>>> > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to >>>> represent >>>> > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement >>>> with the >>>> > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the >>>> inclusion, this >>>> > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good >>>> standing on other >>>> > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >>>> > >>>> > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where >>>> there are >>>> > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or >>>> groups that have >>>> > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov >>>> issues. >>>> > >>>> > --srs (iPad) >>>> > >>>> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among >>>> members >>>> of the >>>> >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It >>>> relates to >>>> >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments >>>> and input. >>>> >> >>>> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after >>>> which we >>>> >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a >>>> feeling for >>>> >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and >>>> digest, and >>>> >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>>> >> >>>> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing >>>> representatives for >>>> >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly >>>> advisable for >>>> >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other >>>> great needs >>>> >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>>> >> communication between groups working in the area of internet >>>> governance >>>> >> might be useful. >>>> >> >>>> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the >>>> group to >>>> >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that >>>> choice >>>> would >>>> >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or >>>> its >>>> >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively >>>> lead to >>>> >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society >>>> representation. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>>> >> >>>> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a >>>> number of >>>> >> different parties and it was decided to defer further >>>> considerations until >>>> >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some >>>> discussion on >>>> >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible >>>> criteria for >>>> >> involvement. >>>> >> >>>> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to >>>> enlarge the >>>> >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could >>>> remain and >>>> >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For >>>> additional >>>> >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >>>> interest – >>>> >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. >>>> That >>>> allows >>>> >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups >>>> with a >>>> strong >>>> >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good >>>> step, and >>>> >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such >>>> questions until >>>> >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>>> >> >>>> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to >>>> select.... >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co >>>> ordination group, >>>> >> but also for any future CS representation). >>>> >> >>>> >> We present three different options here. >>>> >> >>>> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>>> >> >>>> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult >>>> with >>>> >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is >>>> out? And >>>> >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, >>>> where >>>> suddenly >>>> >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got >>>> involved in >>>> support >>>> >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The >>>> context for us >>>> >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all >>>> our >>>> >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. >>>> And setting >>>> >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a >>>> fairly >>>> >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask >>>> which >>>> >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be >>>> included) >>>> >> >>>> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>>> >> >>>> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>>> >> >>>> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the >>>> Charter of >>>> >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may >>>> be some >>>> >> other examples. >>>> >> >>>> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have >>>> reservations. >>>> >> >>>> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>>> >> >>>> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 >>>> or so >>>> >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>>> >> >>>> >> 2 included known trolls. >>>> >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis >>>> of only >>>> >> one or two active members. >>>> >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>>> >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one >>>> individual >>>> >> making decisions >>>> >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>>> >> >>>> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>>> >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in >>>> this case for >>>> >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from >>>> deliberations >>>> >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>>> >> >>>> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context >>>> of a >>>> >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are >>>> important >>>> >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>>> >> >>>> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical >>>> community, >>>> >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other >>>> organisation >>>> we can >>>> >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, >>>> accountable and >>>> >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the >>>> Nomcom. That >>>> >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could >>>> undertake >>>> >> when in place. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be >>>> agreed to >>>> >> and sorted out. >>>> >> >>>> >> CRITERIA >>>> >> >>>> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed >>>> these in >>>> >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>>> >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, >>>> they will >>>> >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions >>>> left >>>> these >>>> >> under consideration >>>> >> >>>> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - >>>> all regions >>>> >> covered? >>>> >> >>>> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as >>>> opposed to >>>> >> business)? >>>> >> >>>> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, >>>> academic, >>>> >> business or government in its categorization? >>>> >> >>>> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered >>>> by one of >>>> >> the existing members? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately >>>> transparent and >>>> >> accountable to its members. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement >>>> in and >>>> >> knowledge of internet governance issues >>>> >> >>>> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to >>>> change. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Over to everyone for comments. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Ian Peter >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >> >>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> 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 avri at acm.org Sat Jan 25 18:40:43 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:40:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length Message-ID: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> Hi, I just voted and wondered: I may have missed the discussion/explanation. Have we decided how we reset the every other year cycle of coordinators set in charter? Do we give the first place finisher the 2 year term and the second place finisher a 1 year term? Or? 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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 18:52:40 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:52:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 is good idea. Antonio 2014-01-25 Avri Doria > Hi, > > I just voted and wondered: > > I may have missed the discussion/explanation. > > Have we decided how we reset the every other year cycle of coordinators > set in charter? > > Do we give the first place finisher the 2 year term and the second place > finisher a 1 year term? > > Or? > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 20:34:28 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:34:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> Message-ID: seems reasonable to me On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I just voted and wondered: > > I may have missed the discussion/explanation. > > Have we decided how we reset the every other year cycle of coordinators set > in charter? > > Do we give the first place finisher the 2 year term and the second place > finisher a 1 year term? > > Or? > > 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 > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 26 01:41:58 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:11:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: , <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <52E4AE36.7010503@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 January 2014 04:28 AM, Laura Tresca wrote: > What´s the impact of this Comission over the Brazilian meeting? All What bothers me is how a new paradigm of global governance - or at least of norms-setting that converts into governance -is being set up,which is completely dominated and dictated by the North, and the powerful. ICANN sets a high profile panel on global IG, and now we have this Northern governments driven initiative. Such initiatives will shape what is Internet governance, its essential vocabulary and paradigms. For instance, here we see talk of Internet freedom and Internet security but not things like Internet equality and Internet justice... Who will frame and articulate such latter ideas and concerns? Civil society which should be doing it has been conveniently co-opted, and handed over rattle toys like the slogans of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism, which is seems to rather pleased to keep shaking and hearing its wonderful sounds. The purpose of the commission is clear in this part of the announcement "The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack". Not a word about the injustices and illegitimacies of the current models. This is an effort by the powerful to put back on course a ship rocked by Snowden et el. And to do it this time in a much more elaborate and sophisticated manner, so that it takes another couple of decades for anyone to figure out a good articulate response to it.... The announcement of the commission also says that "The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time". Sure! But you should hear the same actors, who drive this commission, inside US spaces. like to the WG on enhanced cooperation. They seem utterly unconvinced that there are any important global public policy issues related to the Internet at all.And this needless discussion has taken up most of the time of the WG, rather than talk about the real issue of how should we democratically deal with the existing and emergent public policy issues. You would expect civil society to expose such hypocrisy, but then.... Decades of post-colonial gains and victories towards more just and democratic global frameworks are being allowed to erode rapidly in the IG space. Pity is that civil society has mostly not stood up to these losses. It has mostly allowed itself to be hoodwinked with facile and misguiding arguments like 'access is more important' or 'a China or Iran will take over the global Internet' while some global superpowers actually take over the Internet as means of global domination - economic, political, social and cultural. The civil society involved in global IG has simply had no response to this enormity. It has mostly agreed to be easily co-opted and go along merrily reciting the slogans manufactured for it by the powerful. In his writings about participatory democracy (which is want is needed, not some kind of compromised multistakeholderism), John Gaventa theorises about 'invited spaces' and 'invented spaces' .... While participating in 'invited spaces' may sometimes (only sometimes) be usefultactically, what is really needed is for progressive civil society to 'invent' its spaces of engagement, at its own terms, and not those of the powerful, whose power is what is required to be confronted... Participating in this commission etc is to agree to engage on the terms of 'those powerful'. As framing of global IG's basic ideas and norms, and the needed action, moves firmly towards the World Economic Forum (both, this commission and the ICANN panel), the big question is - who would provide the resistances and counter action against the complete capture of the agenda by the globe's most powerful.... Who would pull things towards, say, the World Social Forum. Or are we happy to take the cushy rides that are offered to us, holding high their compromised slogans, developed specifically for civil society 'friends'..... Inter alia, do we realise what it means to abandon the UN (that evil force!) and take a happy ride to Davos.... The question is not just whether the UN is bad... Yes it is in many ways, and we need to constantly try and improve global democracy... The question is, whether Davos is a better destination? Because that is where everything global IG seems to be headed now. A last comment: There is an extra- ordinarily huge amount of funds suddenly thrown into the global IG space by Northern powers. Announcements of new initiatives, including research and advocacy programs, seem to appear almost by the day... Such sudden, often/ mostly motivated, funding can reconfigure 'civil society' which IMHO it is indeed doing right now. However, a lot of people here would not want us to talk about such matters, and what this means to real civil soicety concerns, and how the space may be being captured... parminder > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 > Para: Governance; > Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI > > FYI > === > > CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt > > Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). > > Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. > > “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” > > The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. > > The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. > > The commission will focus on four key themes: > > • Enhancing governance legitimacy; > • Stimulating innovation; > • Ensuring human rights online; > • Avoiding systemic risks. > “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. > > “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. > > Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: > > • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Dominic Barton > • Pablo Bello > • Dae-Whan Chang > • Moez Chatchouk > • Michael Chertoff > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Hartmut Glaser > • Dorothy Gordon > • Dame Wendy Hall > • Fen Osler Hampson > • Melissa Hathaway > • Patricia Lewis > • Mathias Müller von Blumencron > • Beth Simone Noveck > • Joseph S. Nye > • Sir David Omand > • Nii Quaynor > • Latha Reddy > • Marietje Schaake > • Tobby Simon > • Michael Spence > • Paul Twomey > • Pindar Wong > “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. > > “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. > > Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. > > For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. > === > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 02:22:49 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:52:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: , <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <52E4B7C9.4090404@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 January 2014 04:28 AM, Laura Tresca wrote: > What´s the impact of this Comission over the Brazilian meeting? Laura Since you question is specifically about the impact on Brazil meeting... I think this is a part of a pincer attack, for dominating the global IG space (along with initiatives like the ICANN high level panel), lest relatively more neutral venues like the Brazil meeting, or more democratic platforms like the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, do anything to spoil the party.... And of course 'they' are powerful enough to work from within as well - as ICANN did quite well, suddenly, and rather unexpectedly, to capture the co-ownership of the Brazil meeting.... One can see, how powerful some parties are, and how extremely strategic and well funded their overall effort.... Civil society which is supposed to look after excluded interests too seems rather happy to go along, and I think its (or rather its leadership's) acts of omission and commission in the shaping of an appropriate role and independence of civil society Brazil meeting have been rather disappointing.. I do however still have a lot of hope from the Brazilian meeting. I expect the Brazilians to re-group quickly and take stock that they called this meeting as coming from the rather impressive speech of their President at the UN, and not just a place for secret deal making among the powerful. My organisation and networks that we work with seek to engage with the Brazilian meeting in this background, and with this hope.. parminder > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 > Para: Governance; > Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI > > FYI > === > > CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt > > Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). > > Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. > > “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” > > The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. > > The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. > > The commission will focus on four key themes: > > • Enhancing governance legitimacy; > • Stimulating innovation; > • Ensuring human rights online; > • Avoiding systemic risks. > “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. > > “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. > > Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: > > • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Dominic Barton > • Pablo Bello > • Dae-Whan Chang > • Moez Chatchouk > • Michael Chertoff > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Hartmut Glaser > • Dorothy Gordon > • Dame Wendy Hall > • Fen Osler Hampson > • Melissa Hathaway > • Patricia Lewis > • Mathias Müller von Blumencron > • Beth Simone Noveck > • Joseph S. Nye > • Sir David Omand > • Nii Quaynor > • Latha Reddy > • Marietje Schaake > • Tobby Simon > • Michael Spence > • Paul Twomey > • Pindar Wong > “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. > > “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. > > Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. > > For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. > === > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 02:26:55 2014 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:26:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> Message-ID: <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear All IGC Members, I am not sure about my position to comment on the Election being a candidate of a running one, but just for clarity, I would like to quote the following points: 1.under the section of "Selection of Coordinators" an example followed for 2006, is recorded in the charter: "....(Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will serve until the end of the first election period,  during which two coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two (2) years)." Avri is right that it is not included in the Charter that who will serve for one (1) year and who will serve for two (2) years. However, this matter was also pointed out by the Ian Peter in his email on 3th Nov, along with a valid solution:  "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The person  with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most votes  serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I think that is a  correct reading of the situation given the year in which the resignation  was received......" May we invite other IGC Members to comment, either they agree or propose any other method, and just to establish a "rough consensus" before the the end of the election. We may include this point for the future discussion about charter amendment. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah  >________________________________ > From: McTim >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Avri Doria >Sent: Sunday, 26 January 2014, 6:34 >Subject: Re: [governance] Voting and term length > > >seems reasonable to me > > >On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just voted and wondered: >> >> I may have missed the discussion/explanation. >> >> Have we decided how we reset the every other year cycle of coordinators set >> in charter? >> >> Do we give the first place finisher the 2 year term and the second place >> finisher a 1 year term? >> >> Or? >> >> 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 >> > > > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 26 03:30:10 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:30:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: References: <20140118095937.41a21cf7@quill> Message-ID: <20140126093010.4871eb0c@quill> Many thanks to Richard for his comments on the questions that I had raised. I've added two notes at the end which are inspired by Richard's response (see below). I had hoped that there would be significant discussion, and on the basis of that, a consensus process on this submission. It is not a problem from my perspective however to provide this input as an individual submission. Alternatively, if someone is interested in co-signing this, please let me know by tonight 23.00 UTC. Greetings, Norbert --snip------------------------------------------------------------- Submission on substantive discourse processes This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the various perspectives on this are. If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling substantive inputs could include the following: * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various perspectives. * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive inputs into a comprehensive report. * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive contributions. The working group will draft a report on requirements and concerns, noting which points require further clarification. * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that their contribution is reflected appropriately. * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have submitted are processed. * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the various perspectives on this are. * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open points. * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. Notes: 1. In terms of style requirements on the submissions, a necessary and maybe sufficient rule is that ad hominem attacks, insults, etc. must not be allowed. 2. The fundamental model for developing the output document would be the "single text" approach: there is one document, and anybody is free to propose changes to it. The changes are discussed and agreed or not. The starting point for this process is an empty document. Respectfully submitted with all the best wishes Norbert Bollow, Swiss Open Systems User Group -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 04:03:51 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:03:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> Message-ID: <20140126100351.52c9ced7@quill> Avri Doria wrote: > Do we give the first place finisher the 2 year term and the second > place finisher a 1 year term? I thought that was the emerging consensus when this was discussed a while back. However, there has not yet been a formal consensus call on this. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 26 06:10:09 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:10:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Idea of an IGC/BestBits fusion (was Re: civil society co ordination group...) In-Reply-To: <52E43B10.20905@acm.org> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> <52E3EF04.9040306@wzb.eu> <52E43603.9080309@cafonso.ca> <52E43B10.20905@acm.org> Message-ID: <20140126121009.54564d6c@quill> Dear all I would be willing to accept BB as “IGC v2.0” if some basic democratic structures were added. At the very least I would suggest that there should be some kind of reasonable process of elections for the steering committee, and that there needs to be an appeals team and a reasonable process to appoint it. However, at the BestBits meeting in Bali the question of adding some kinds of more formal structures than BestBits has had so far was briefly discussed, and the idea did not get a lot of support. That led me to think that an “IGC v2.0” would need to be chartered independently of BestBits. But I like the suggestion of Carlos to create “a joint group derived from the IGC ashes and [BestBits]”. Let's just make sure that we don't lose what has been achieved at IGC in terms of fundamental democratic structure. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:30:40 -0500 schrieb Avri Doria : > Hi, > > That's a good idea to. > > Perhaps BB is the phoenix. > > avri > > On 25-Jan-14 17:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Better to rise like a phoenix than as a bunch of zombies. :) > > > > I think the vision of a joint group derived from the IGC ashes and > > a BB with the legitimation of a BB coordination is something we > > should support. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 01/25/2014 03:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Hi Avri, > >> > >> given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how > >> would you then go about the current legitimacy hole? > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) > >>> > >>> As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category > >>> mismatch.. > >>> > >>> I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. > >>> > >>> BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the > >>> leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the > >>> group buys into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then > >>> the combined groups should take a look at it. > >>> > >>> IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 > >>> years and until it manages to right itself, it has no business in > >>> a representational role. > >>> > >>> But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, > >>> distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important > >>> participants in Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the > >>> members of BB and IGC being twice represented at this point, I do > >>> believe it is a good idea for them to be represented by a > >>> singular BB/IGC representative that is an active participant in > >>> both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice of the > >>> groups. > >>> > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>> Hi Nnenna, > >>>> > >>>> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group > >>>> with BB, IGC, Diplo and APC. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Rafik > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> How about a "network nomcom"? > >>>> > >>>> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a > >>>> kind of > >>>> improvement of what we have now. > >>>> > >>>> What do we have now? A cordination of individual > >>>> representatives of different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and > >>>> IGC. > >>>> > >>>> Here is my suggestion: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other > >>>> networks/coalitions > >>>> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to > >>>> "expand" :) 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > >>>> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within > >>>> itself, > >>>> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > >>>> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when > >>>> needed 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be > >>>> chosen by their > >>>> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition > >>>> may decide > >>>> the method that is best suited to them to appoint > >>>> qualified person/s > >>>> for the task at hand. > >>>> > >>>> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > >>>> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent > >>>> network/coalition 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom > >>>> person based on the person's expertise on the subject for which > >>>> CS reps are being called > >>>> for > >>>> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods > >>>> they deem best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of > >>>> Networks" > >>>> > >>>> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair > >>>> for 1 year, > >>>> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not > >>>> persons. Each > >>>> time there is need for CS representation then each network > >>>> notifies the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> > >>>> Nnenna > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being > >>>> > selected to > >>>> represent > >>>> > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior > >>>> > engagement > >>>> with the > >>>> > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase > >>>> > the > >>>> inclusion, this > >>>> > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good > >>>> standing on other > >>>> > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific > >>>> > caucus] > >>>> > > >>>> > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, > >>>> > where > >>>> there are > >>>> > endorsements for specific individuals from random people > >>>> > or > >>>> groups that have > >>>> > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on > >>>> > igov > >>>> issues. > >>>> > > >>>> > --srs (iPad) > >>>> > > >>>> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" > >>>> >> >>>> > wrote: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among > >>>> members > >>>> of the > >>>> >> civil society co ordination group for comments and > >>>> >> input. It > >>>> relates to > >>>> >> some options for this group. It would be good to have > >>>> >> comments > >>>> and input. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, > >>>> >> after > >>>> which we > >>>> >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to > >>>> >> get a > >>>> feeling for > >>>> >> how people think about options emerging. So please > >>>> >> comment and > >>>> digest, and > >>>> >> we will look forward to getting wide input. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing > >>>> representatives for > >>>> >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly > >>>> advisable for > >>>> >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no > >>>> >> other > >>>> great needs > >>>> >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a > >>>> >> continuing communication between groups working in the > >>>> >> area of internet > >>>> governance > >>>> >> might be useful. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be > >>>> >> for the > >>>> group to > >>>> >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that > >>>> choice > >>>> would > >>>> >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group > >>>> >> (or > >>>> its > >>>> >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively > >>>> lead to > >>>> >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society > >>>> representation. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > >>>> >> > >>>> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a > >>>> number of > >>>> >> different parties and it was decided to defer further > >>>> considerations until > >>>> >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also > >>>> >> some > >>>> discussion on > >>>> >> list here immediately before Christmas about some > >>>> >> possible > >>>> criteria for > >>>> >> involvement. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide > >>>> >> to > >>>> enlarge the > >>>> >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members > >>>> >> could > >>>> remain and > >>>> >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC > >>>> >> Co-ordinators. For > >>>> additional > >>>> >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to > >>>> >> expressions of > >>>> interest – > >>>> >> but not only from organisations, but also from > >>>> >> individuals. > >>>> That > >>>> allows > >>>> >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups > >>>> with a > >>>> strong > >>>> >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be > >>>> >> a good > >>>> step, and > >>>> >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave > >>>> >> such > >>>> questions until > >>>> >> the co ordination group is fully populated. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how > >>>> >> to > >>>> select.... > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co > >>>> ordination group, > >>>> >> but also for any future CS representation). > >>>> >> > >>>> >> We present three different options here. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING > >>>> >> > >>>> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more > >>>> >> difficult > >>>> with > >>>> >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, > >>>> >> who is > >>>> out? And > >>>> >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large > >>>> >> elections, > >>>> where > >>>> suddenly > >>>> >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got > >>>> involved in > >>>> support > >>>> >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. > >>>> >> The > >>>> context for us > >>>> >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of > >>>> >> all > >>>> our > >>>> >> organisations, this is very open to capture and > >>>> >> manipulation. > >>>> And setting > >>>> >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting > >>>> >> list is a > >>>> fairly > >>>> >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to > >>>> >> ask > >>>> which > >>>> >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists > >>>> >> would be > >>>> included) > >>>> >> > >>>> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that > >>>> >> direction. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > >>>> >> > >>>> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted > >>>> >> in the > >>>> Charter of > >>>> >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but > >>>> >> there may > >>>> be some > >>>> >> other examples. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have > >>>> reservations. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of > >>>> >> this > >>>> >> > >>>> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with > >>>> >> perhaps 9 > >>>> or so > >>>> >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 2 included known trolls. > >>>> >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on > >>>> >> the basis > >>>> of only > >>>> >> one or two active members. > >>>> >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair > >>>> >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with > >>>> >> one > >>>> individual > >>>> >> making decisions > >>>> >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to > >>>> >> chance.” > >>>> >> > >>>> >> To this we would add issues involved with random > >>>> >> selection when factions/different organisations are > >>>> >> involved. It is easy in > >>>> this case for > >>>> >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from > >>>> deliberations > >>>> >> because they weren’t randomly selected. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the > >>>> >> context > >>>> of a > >>>> >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these > >>>> >> are > >>>> important > >>>> >> matters of representation best not left to chance. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > >>>> >> > >>>> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by > >>>> >> technical > >>>> community, > >>>> >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other > >>>> organisation > >>>> we can > >>>> >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that > >>>> >> transparent, > >>>> accountable and > >>>> >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the > >>>> Nomcom. That > >>>> >> would be something the coordination group mentioned > >>>> >> above could > >>>> undertake > >>>> >> when in place. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need > >>>> >> to be > >>>> agreed to > >>>> >> and sorted out. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> CRITERIA > >>>> >> > >>>> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we > >>>> >> discussed > >>>> these in > >>>> >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would > >>>> >> nominate representatives. But if we are looking at > >>>> >> individuals as well, > >>>> they will > >>>> >> need to change. But for reference, the previous > >>>> >> discussions > >>>> left > >>>> these > >>>> >> under consideration > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally > >>>> >> representative - > >>>> all regions > >>>> >> covered? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as > >>>> opposed to > >>>> >> business)? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, > >>>> academic, > >>>> >> business or government in its categorization? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already > >>>> >> covered > >>>> by one of > >>>> >> the existing members? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately > >>>> transparent and > >>>> >> accountable to its members. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current > >>>> >> involvement > >>>> in and > >>>> >> knowledge of internet governance issues > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have > >>>> >> to > >>>> change. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Over to everyone for comments. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Ian Peter > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> > >>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> >> > >>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Translate this email: > >>>> >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> 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 avri at acm.org Sun Jan 26 07:33:38 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 07:33:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> Ah, so Ian covered it already. sorry. avri On 26-Jan-14 02:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > * > * > "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The > person > with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most votes > serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I think that is a > correct reading of the situation given the year in which the resignation > was received......" -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 07:54:26 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:54:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> Message-ID: <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> The idea may not be new, but I think that IGC still hasn't formally decided on this proposal. I would suggest that Sala, as acting IGC coordinator, could post a formal consensus call with a specific deadline for any objections. I would further suggest that the end of the voting period of the ongoing election would be a reasonable deadline. Greetings, Norbert Avri Doria wrote: > Ah, so Ian covered it already. > > sorry. > > avri > > > On 26-Jan-14 02:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > * > > * > > "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two > > candidates. The person > > with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most > > votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I > > think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in > > which the resignation was received......" -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 26 08:25:58 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:25:58 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia Hi everyone... Any comments on Marilia's email? If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated? The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time). Adam On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > - Meeting agenda > > - Meeting format > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > - Public consultation > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > Best > > Marília > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > Joana, thanks so much. > > Adding in a few more : > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joana Varon > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > To: ; ; > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > before 27th meeting > > > > Dear all, > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? > * There will be travel support? > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? > * There will be remote participation? > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 Sun Jan 26 08:31:46 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:31:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: <52E4AE36.7010503@itforchange.net> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52E4AE36.7010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:41 AM, parminder wrote: > For instance, here we see talk of Internet freedom and Internet security > but not things like Internet equality and Internet justice... Who will > frame and articulate such latter ideas and concerns? > This is true. An agenda articulated with inputs from developing regions would include other points as well. I wonder if they realize how self-centered this announcement sounds to the ears of many people in the world... > > The purpose of the commission is clear in this part of the announcement "The > rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible > model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is > coming under attack". Not a word about the injustices and illegitimacies of > the current models. This is an effort by the powerful to put back on course > a ship rocked by Snowden et el. > Yes, this language stroke me in the first reading. It is reactive, reactionist and pro what they must believe is a perfect status quo. This passage is particularly interesting "But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated". It is like he is implying that people are "using" the agenda anti-surveillance, for instance, to attack the present model. We probably should push surveillance under the rug to avoid causing inconveniences... By the way, another thing that concerns me is that this language of "coming under attack" is becoming very frequent, not only in debates about governance, but also about (national) security. The idea of a cyber arms race is being sold, little by little. > > A last comment: There is an extra- ordinarily huge amount of funds > suddenly thrown into the global IG Such sudden, often/ mostly motivated, > funding can reconfigure 'civil society' which IMHO it is indeed doing right > now. However, a lot of people here would not want us to talk about such > matters, and what this means to real civil soicety concerns, and how the > space may be being captured... > This is an important observation and should be a real concern. Marília > > parminder > > > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 > Para: Governance; > Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI > > FYI > === > > CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt > > Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). > > Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. > > “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” > > The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. > > The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. > > The commission will focus on four key themes: > > • Enhancing governance legitimacy; > • Stimulating innovation; > • Ensuring human rights online; > • Avoiding systemic risks. > “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. > > “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. > > Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org : > > • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Dominic Barton > • Pablo Bello > • Dae-Whan Chang > • Moez Chatchouk > • Michael Chertoff > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Hartmut Glaser > • Dorothy Gordon > • Dame Wendy Hall > • Fen Osler Hampson > • Melissa Hathaway > • Patricia Lewis > • Mathias Müller von Blumencron > • Beth Simone Noveck > • Joseph S. Nye > • Sir David Omand > • Nii Quaynor > • Latha Reddy > • Marietje Schaake > • Tobby Simon > • Michael Spence > • Paul Twomey > • Pindar Wong > “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. > > “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. > > Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. > > For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org . Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. > === > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 08:40:04 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:40:04 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Marillia and all I would like to throw in 2 more questions. 1. Can we have a Day 0? For organisations that may want to have a preparatory event? 2. Will there be a space for exhibition, demos? Thanks N On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Marilia > > Hi everyone... > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how > seats might be allocated? > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. > Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil > local time). > > Adam > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the > executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the > topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > - Meeting format > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further > explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address > them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > Best > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade > wrote: > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this > WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public > free access? > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be > given priority? > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joana Varon > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in > order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who > gets invited? > > * There will be travel support? > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also > be invited? What are the restrictions? > > * There will be remote participation? > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle > of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also > reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or > more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jan 26 08:42:23 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:42:23 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Thanks for this. A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try. Best Joana On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Thanks Marilia > > Hi everyone... > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how > seats might be allocated? > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. > Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil > local time). > > Adam > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the > executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the > topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > - Meeting format > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further > explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address > them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > Best > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade > wrote: > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this > WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public > free access? > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be > given priority? > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joana Varon > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in > order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who > gets invited? > > * There will be travel support? > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also > be invited? What are the restrictions? > > * There will be remote participation? > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle > of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also > reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or > more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rhill at hill-a.ch Sun Jan 26 08:54:04 2014 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:54:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: <20140126093010.4871eb0c@quill> Message-ID: I will be pleased to co-sign it. Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: dimanche, 26. janvier 2014 09:30 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Richard Hill > Cc: Daniel IGA MWESIGWA; Birgitta Jónsdóttir > Subject: Re: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil > MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) > > > Many thanks to Richard for his comments on the questions that I had > raised. > > I've added two notes at the end which are inspired by Richard's > response (see below). > > I had hoped that there would be significant discussion, and on the > basis of that, a consensus process on this submission. It is not a > problem from my perspective however to provide this input as an > individual submission. Alternatively, if someone is interested in > co-signing this, please let me know by tonight 23.00 UTC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------- > > Submission on substantive discourse processes > > This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes > for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > > According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus > on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for > the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” > > Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it > may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering > requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles > and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from > various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling > substantive inputs could include the following: > > * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input > documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various > perspectives. > > * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive > inputs into a comprehensive report. > > * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive > contributions. The working group will draft a report on > requirements and concerns, noting which points require further > clarification. > > * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that > their contribution is reflected appropriately. > > * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have > submitted are processed. > > * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify > what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report > can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the > various perspectives on this are. > > * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that > need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant. > > * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions > attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open > points. > > * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution > proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. > > Notes: > > 1. In terms of style requirements on the submissions, a necessary > and maybe sufficient rule is that ad hominem attacks, insults, etc. > must not be allowed. > > 2. The fundamental model for developing the output document would be > the "single text" approach: there is one document, and anybody is > free to propose changes to it. The changes are discussed and agreed > or not. The starting point for this process is an empty document. > > > Respectfully submitted > with all the best wishes > > Norbert Bollow, Swiss Open Systems User Group > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 26 09:05:33 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 23:05:33 +0900 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joana, Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But will mention visas as they are always a hassle. Numbers will be "interesting". Adam On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for this. > > A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). > > About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try. > > Best > > Joana > > On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Thanks Marilia > > Hi everyone... > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated? > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time). > > Adam > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > - Meeting format > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > Best > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joana Varon > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > To: ; ; > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? > > * There will be travel support? > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? > > * There will be remote participation? > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 26 09:06:44 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 23:06:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> Message-ID: I believe it was the process used when the staggered terms for coordinators was first introduced. Also pretty much common sense. No need for a consensus call. Adam On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > The idea may not be new, but I think that IGC still hasn't formally > decided on this proposal. > > I would suggest that Sala, as acting IGC coordinator, could post a > formal consensus call with a specific deadline for any objections. > > I would further suggest that the end of the voting period of the > ongoing election would be a reasonable deadline. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> Ah, so Ian covered it already. >> >> sorry. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26-Jan-14 02:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> * >>> * >>> "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two >>> candidates. The person >>> with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most >>> votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I >>> think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in >>> which the resignation was received......" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Jan 26 09:59:47 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:59:47 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Joana and Nnenna, these are very good points. Thanks for starting to share ideas about participation in the event. According to the map Adam sent, the maximum capacity of the auditorium seems to be 1.500, but I imagine we need to save room for ground staff as well. Regardless of the exact number, which I think we will know for sure tomorrow, my impression is that in general people seem to be ok with a fixed number of participants per stakeholder group. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. - First come first served. People who register would be accepted until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and developed regions, presenting contributions to the public consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the above. Regarding format on the meeting and taking into account that we will have about 10h of actual work (there is lunch, there is opening session, etc), do you think we should have two separate tracks working in parallel (one for each agenda issue)? Would that optimize our time? Thanks for the inputs. Marília On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a > lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But > will mention visas as they are always a hassle. > > Numbers will be "interesting". < > http://www.transamerica.com.br/en/saopaulo/eventos/salas-e-capacidades.aspx > > > > Adam > > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered > to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you > that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that > requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). > > > > About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is > planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, > 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I > would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an > interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this > math... but just starting to give it a try. > > > > Best > > > > Joana > > > > On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Thanks Marilia > > > > Hi everyone... > > > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how > seats might be allocated? > > > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. > Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil > local time). > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the > executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the > topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > > > - Meeting format > > > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further > explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address > them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade < > marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this > WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public > free access? > > > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be > given priority? > > > > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joana Varon > > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to > LOC > > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in > order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides > who gets invited? > > > * There will be travel support? > > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can > also be invited? What are the restrictions? > > > * There will be remote participation? > > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle > of Brazilian Carnival) > > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could > also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these > (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > > > > best > > > > > > joana > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 10:11:33 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:11:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> Message-ID: I'm not sure I fully understand, though, what is meant by that first first sentence in the quote from Ian's email: "...everyone gets to vote for two candidates..." Every individual voting member will pick 2 out of the 3 currently standing? That doesn't look like the way the current poll is set up, does it? Gee, I wish I could remember the procedure in the previous voting cycles! Mawaki On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > I believe it was the process used when the staggered terms for > coordinators was first introduced. Also pretty much common sense. No need > for a consensus call. > > Adam > > > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > The idea may not be new, but I think that IGC still hasn't formally > > decided on this proposal. > > > > I would suggest that Sala, as acting IGC coordinator, could post a > > formal consensus call with a specific deadline for any objections. > > > > I would further suggest that the end of the voting period of the > > ongoing election would be a reasonable deadline. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Ah, so Ian covered it already. > >> > >> sorry. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 26-Jan-14 02:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >>> * > >>> * > >>> "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two > >>> candidates. The person > >>> with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most > >>> votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I > >>> think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in > >>> which the resignation was received......" > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 10:26:57 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:26:57 +0100 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Marilia Maciel wrote: > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: > > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. > > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the > above. APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. I support that proposal. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 26 10:32:52 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:32:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> Message-ID: <20140126163252.6660c322@quill> Mawaki Chango wrote: > I'm not sure I fully understand, though, what is meant by that first > first sentence in the quote from Ian's email: > > "...everyone gets to vote for two candidates..." > > Every individual voting member will pick 2 out of the 3 currently > standing? That doesn't look like the way the current poll is set up, > does it? I like the way the current poll is set up, in that it offers each voter the choice to vote for zero, one or two of the candidates. > Gee, I wish I could remember the procedure in the previous > voting cycles! In the voting cycles of recent years, there was only a need to appoint one new co-coordinator, to replace one whose term was ending. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 10:35:24 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:35:24 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be useful. Best Marília On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally > > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected > > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please > > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: > > > > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some > > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. > > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted > > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. > > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance > > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on > > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and > > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public > > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have > > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria > > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. > > > > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the > > above. > > APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the > basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. > > I support that proposal. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 10:53:41 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:23:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <20140126163252.6660c322@quill> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> <20140126163252.6660c322@quill> Message-ID: <52E52F85.2050700@itforchange.net> Is there a way to send final reminder 2 days in advance of voting closure... and also mention that to have voted is necessary to be able to vote subsequently for charter amendment etc, and thus in way to be considered as full members, just as a manner of speaking... parminder On Sunday 26 January 2014 09:02 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> I'm not sure I fully understand, though, what is meant by that first >> first sentence in the quote from Ian's email: >> >> "...everyone gets to vote for two candidates..." >> >> Every individual voting member will pick 2 out of the 3 currently >> standing? That doesn't look like the way the current poll is set up, >> does it? > I like the way the current poll is set up, in that it offers each voter > the choice to vote for zero, one or two of the candidates. > >> Gee, I wish I could remember the procedure in the previous >> voting cycles! > In the voting cycles of recent years, there was only a need to appoint > one new co-coordinator, to replace one whose term was ending. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Jan 26 10:55:27 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:55:27 +0100 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: <52E52FEF.10004@wzb.eu> Judging from what I see particularly on the 1net and the IGC but to some degree also the bestbits list, the majority of the partcipants selected on that basis will be male. What is more, the number of participants will be rather small. Proabably less than 50 or so. Is substantive participation really a sound selection criteria? Or are we talking about contributions elsewhere? If that is the case, how are we going to assess substantive participation? I think such a criteria only makes sense in combination with other ones. First we should try to find out how many people actually plan to go to Sao Paulo. jeanette Am 26.01.14 16:26, schrieb Norbert Bollow: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >> tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >> so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >> propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >> >> - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >> fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >> - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >> until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >> Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >> - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >> previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >> developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >> consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >> attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >> is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >> >> Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >> above. > > APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the > basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. > > I support that proposal. > > 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sun Jan 26 10:59:51 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:59:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> Message-ID: Mawaki, the understanding is there will not be two votes for first and second co-co. Each individual only has one ballot. The candidate who emerges first serves 2years, and the second 1 year. On 26/01/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I'm not sure I fully understand, though, what is meant by that first first > sentence in the quote from Ian's email: > > "...everyone gets to vote for two candidates..." > > Every individual voting member will pick 2 out of the 3 currently standing? > That doesn't look like the way the current poll is set up, does it? Gee, I > wish I could remember the procedure in the previous voting cycles! > > Mawaki > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> I believe it was the process used when the staggered terms for >> coordinators was first introduced. Also pretty much common sense. No >> need >> for a consensus call. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > The idea may not be new, but I think that IGC still hasn't formally >> > decided on this proposal. >> > >> > I would suggest that Sala, as acting IGC coordinator, could post a >> > formal consensus call with a specific deadline for any objections. >> > >> > I would further suggest that the end of the voting period of the >> > ongoing election would be a reasonable deadline. >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> >> Ah, so Ian covered it already. >> >> >> >> sorry. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> On 26-Jan-14 02:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> * >> >>> * >> >>> "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two >> >>> candidates. The person >> >>> with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most >> >>> votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I >> >>> think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in >> >>> which the resignation was received......" >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 11:23:42 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:23:42 +0000 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one being contribution during the prep process. However, there is one thing that needs to be checked ** the size of government delegations*** How many people can be in an official delegation? Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official delegation?" N On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older threads > in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please link > them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be useful. > Best > Marília > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >> > >> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >> > >> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >> > above. >> >> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >> >> I support that proposal. >> >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Sun Jan 26 11:42:50 2014 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:42:50 +0400 Subject: [governance] Open Cosultations February Message-ID: <651390754570@web18h.yandex.ru> Dear colleagues! Do you know when the registration for the Open Consultations and MAG meeting will be opened? Thank you! With kind regards, Andrey Shcherbovich HSE -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 12:06:16 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:06:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> Message-ID: Ok, thank you guys... Didn't realize I could vote for 2. I initially presumed people would just vote for their one preferred candidate (as usual) and whoever gets the second highest number of votes finishes the half term. Assuming the bottom two candidates won't be a a tie, in which case... well, we'll see. m. On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Kivuva wrote: > Mawaki, the understanding is there will not be two votes for first and > second co-co. Each individual only has one ballot. The candidate who > emerges first serves 2years, and the second 1 year. > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Gee, I wish I could remember the procedure in the previous > voting cycles! In the voting cycles of recent years, there was only a need to appoint one new co-coordinator, to replace one whose term was ending. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jan 26 13:08:37 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:08:37 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Very good point, Nnenna. Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more support to push them as urgent matters as well. For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to consult with the stakeholders. All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired meeting Best Joana On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: > I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one > being contribution during the prep process. > However, there is one thing that needs to be checked > ** the size of government delegations*** > > How many people can be in an official delegation? > > Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks > to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the > question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official > delegation?" > > N > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >> useful. >> Best >> Marília >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>> > >>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>> > >>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>> > above. >>> >>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>> >>> I support that proposal. >>> >>> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jan 26 14:09:43 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:09:43 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Please read "Transmitted on behalf of 1net steering" On 26 Jan 2014 16:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: > Very good point, Nnenna. > > Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, > Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the > sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more > support to push them as urgent matters as well. > > For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to > consult with the stakeholders. > > All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired meeting > > Best > > Joana > On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: > >> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one >> being contribution during the prep process. >> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >> ** the size of government delegations*** >> >> How many people can be in an official delegation? >> >> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks >> to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the >> question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official >> delegation?" >> >> N >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>> useful. >>> Best >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>> > >>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>> > >>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>> > above. >>>> >>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>> >>>> I support that proposal. >>>> >>>> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 16:58:33 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:58:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> Message-ID: <52E58509.50204@acm.org> Hi, Yeah, I am sort of sad I brought it up. but since it is up, we might as well get it settled. avri On 26-Jan-14 07:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > The idea may not be new, but I think that IGC still hasn't formally > decided on this proposal. > > I would suggest that Sala, as acting IGC coordinator, could post a > formal consensus call with a specific deadline for any objections. > > I would further suggest that the end of the voting period of the > ongoing election would be a reasonable deadline. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> Ah, so Ian covered it already. >> >> sorry. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26-Jan-14 02:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> * >>> * >>> "....My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two >>> candidates. The person >>> with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most >>> votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I >>> think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in >>> which the resignation was received......" > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 19:02:13 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:02:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Consultation [MAG] URGENT Message-ID: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jan 26 22:31:37 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:01:37 +0530 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Dear all, On the numbers issue, what I have found intriguing is that there is a felt need to actually put cut-off points for number of participants for each stakeholder group in place, while 1500 is actually slightly more than the number of people who usually attend an IGF (without any cut offs being put into place)? Is this in an attempt to crack up government participation? (And perhaps Adam or someone else in the know can remind us of how big a percentage of IGF participants comes from governments - I tried to find that info on the IGF website but didn't manage to locate it) Before agreeing to any quotas, I think it would be good to have a bit more of a sense of the rationale. Thanks and good luck with the meeting, Marilia and Adam! Anja On 27 January 2014 00:39, Joana Varon wrote: > Please read "Transmitted on behalf of 1net steering" > On 26 Jan 2014 16:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: > >> Very good point, Nnenna. >> >> Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, >> Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the >> sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more >> support to push them as urgent matters as well. >> >> For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to >> consult with the stakeholders. >> >> All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired >> meeting >> >> Best >> >> Joana >> On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: >> >>> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one >>> being contribution during the prep process. >>> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >>> ** the size of government delegations*** >>> >>> How many people can be in an official delegation? >>> >>> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks >>> to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the >>> question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official >>> delegation?" >>> >>> N >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>>> useful. >>>> Best >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have >>>>> informally >>>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>>> > >>>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>>> > >>>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>>> > above. >>>>> >>>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>>> >>>>> I support that proposal. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 27 01:44:54 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:44:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Voting and term length In-Reply-To: <52E52F85.2050700@itforchange.net> References: <52E44B7B.9060507@acm.org> <1390721215.22918.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52E500A2.8020700@acm.org> <20140126135426.5c84bb31@quill> <20140126163252.6660c322@quill> <52E52F85.2050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52E60066.6070207@ciroap.org> On 26/01/14 23:53, parminder wrote: > Is there a way to send final reminder 2 days in advance of voting > closure... Yes, we can automatically have a reminder email sent two days in advance of closure, just to those who haven't voted already. Speaking for the self-appointed IGC technical team. ;-) -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 27 02:37:44 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:37:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Evaluation of IGF2013 Message-ID: <6790313A-8989-47F8-B1DF-D176ACADB24A@glocom.ac.jp> From the IGF website: "All stakeholders are encouraged to to assist the IGF self-evaluating itself and improving each year. To this effect, they are called on to fill in the overall evaluation survey as well as the workshop evaluation form." The link is https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XV29SVS There's no deadline, but sooner the better as it will help the secretariat summarize comments. Questions in the survey below, just for information, it's an online survey. Adam 1. What worked well at IGF 2013? What worked less well? 2. What are the lessons learned from IGF 2013 to improve the IGF 2014? 3. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of IGF 2013 4. Can you think of alternative session formats that would bring an added value to the IGF? 5. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of IGF 2013 Newcomers to the IGF If you were not a newcomer to the IGF, please go to the next page. Thank you. 6. Did you attend the Orientation Sessions? Why/why not? 7. What was the most challenging thing for you during IGF 2013? What would you recommend to help newcomers navigate the meeting? 8. How could the IGF, according to you, be more attractive and relevant? How could the IGF, according to you, be more attractive and relevant? 9. Are there particular broad subjects that you think future IGF meetings should address? Are there particular broad subjects that you think future IGF meetings should address? 10. Do you plan to organize a workshop or another session at a future IGF? Why? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jan 27 05:31:14 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:31:14 +0100 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Anja, You can have some stats about Bali 2013 IGF here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013-bali/attendance-statistics and the attendees list: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013-bali/participants-list Note that all registrants are not necessarily come to the meeting, but it gives idea for countries/continents attendees, but it changes every year depending on the chosen place for this meeting. Chantal 2014/1/27 Anja Kovacs : > Dear all, > > On the numbers issue, what I have found intriguing is that there is a felt > need to actually put cut-off points for number of participants for each > stakeholder group in place, while 1500 is actually slightly more than the > number of people who usually attend an IGF (without any cut offs being put > into place)? > > Is this in an attempt to crack up government participation? (And perhaps > Adam or someone else in the know can remind us of how big a percentage of > IGF participants comes from governments - I tried to find that info on the > IGF website but didn't manage to locate it) > > Before agreeing to any quotas, I think it would be good to have a bit more > of a sense of the rationale. > > Thanks and good luck with the meeting, Marilia and Adam! > > Anja > > > > > On 27 January 2014 00:39, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Please read "Transmitted on behalf of 1net steering" >> On 26 Jan 2014 16:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: >> >>> Very good point, Nnenna. >>> >>> Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, >>> Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the >>> sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more >>> support to push them as urgent matters as well. >>> >>> For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to >>> consult with the stakeholders. >>> >>> All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired >>> meeting >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Joana >>> On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: >>> >>>> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one >>>> being contribution during the prep process. >>>> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >>>> ** the size of government delegations*** >>>> >>>> How many people can be in an official delegation? >>>> >>>> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS >>>> folks to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. >>>> So the question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an >>>> official delegation?" >>>> >>>> N >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel < >>>> mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>>>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>>>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>>>> useful. >>>>> Best >>>>> Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have >>>>>> informally >>>>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>>>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>>>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if >>>>>> criteria >>>>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>>>> > above. >>>>>> >>>>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>>>> >>>>>> I support that proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 06:03:03 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:03:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <628C4ABB-F288-4370-B183-DF1B784EC3DF@gmail.com> Hi Could we please drop ncuc-discuss from the Cc, as it’s really an external discussion and many of the folks replying are not ncuc members so the list moderator has to keep asking me whether to approve etc. Thanks Bill On Jan 26, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Joana and Nnenna, these are very good points. > > Thanks for starting to share ideas about participation in the event. According to the map Adam sent, the maximum capacity of the auditorium seems to be 1.500, but I imagine we need to save room for ground staff as well. Regardless of the exact number, which I think we will know for sure tomorrow, my impression is that in general people seem to be ok with a fixed number of participants per stakeholder group. Please, correct me if I am wrong. > > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: > > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and developed regions, presenting contributions to the public consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. > > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the above. > > Regarding format on the meeting and taking into account that we will have about 10h of actual work (there is lunch, there is opening session, etc), do you think we should have two separate tracks working in parallel (one for each agenda issue)? Would that optimize our time? > > Thanks for the inputs. > Marília > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But will mention visas as they are always a hassle. > > Numbers will be "interesting". > > Adam > > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). > > > > About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try. > > > > Best > > > > Joana > > > > On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Thanks Marilia > > > > Hi everyone... > > > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated? > > > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time). > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > > > - Meeting format > > > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? > > > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? > > > > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joana Varon > > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > > To: ; ; > > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? > > > * There will be travel support? > > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? > > > * There will be remote participation? > > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) > > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. > > > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > > > > best > > > > > > joana > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > @joana_varon > > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > > __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Mon Jan 27 11:38:19 2014 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:38:19 +0400 Subject: [governance] Open Cosultations February In-Reply-To: References: <651390754570@web18h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <11881390840699@web22g.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 27 11:46:44 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:16:44 +0530 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Thank you, Chantal. These are interesting figures: 35% of all IGF participants in 2014 came from Africa, the Asia-Pacific and Africa (though those from AP made up the large majority), while an additional 29% came from the host country. In addition, 46% of all participants represented civil society. It may well still be that civil society from developing countries is under-represented in that 46% (the figures in this graphs don't give further insight into this). I'm also very conscious of the fact that it is less likely that CS participants from developing countries are able to repeat their participation year on year. Both of these are obviously issues that need to be addressed. But even then, these figures made me wonder whether our biggest problem perhaps is that we are not able to use our presence to make our myriad voices effectively heard, rather than a lack of presence as such. With such a large participation of CS people, surely it should be possible for us to have to have greater influence on processes than we currently do, and to have more of the diverse CS voices more loudly heard? And if so, perhaps this should be at the fore of our minds as we prepare for the Brazil meeting, whether or not participation in the event will be decided along quotas. Representation is obviously important, but so is organisation. Best, Anja On 27 January 2014 16:01, chlebrum . wrote: > Anja, > > You can have some stats about Bali 2013 IGF here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013-bali/attendance-statistics > and the attendees list: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013-bali/participants-list > Note that all registrants are not necessarily come to the meeting, but it > gives idea for countries/continents attendees, but it changes every year > depending on the chosen place for this meeting. > > Chantal > > > 2014/1/27 Anja Kovacs : > >> Dear all, >> >> On the numbers issue, what I have found intriguing is that there is a >> felt need to actually put cut-off points for number of participants for >> each stakeholder group in place, while 1500 is actually slightly more than >> the number of people who usually attend an IGF (without any cut offs being >> put into place)? >> >> Is this in an attempt to crack up government participation? (And perhaps >> Adam or someone else in the know can remind us of how big a percentage of >> IGF participants comes from governments - I tried to find that info on the >> IGF website but didn't manage to locate it) >> >> Before agreeing to any quotas, I think it would be good to have a bit >> more of a sense of the rationale. >> >> Thanks and good luck with the meeting, Marilia and Adam! >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 27 January 2014 00:39, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Please read "Transmitted on behalf of 1net steering" >>> On 26 Jan 2014 16:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: >>> >>>> Very good point, Nnenna. >>>> >>>> Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, >>>> Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the >>>> sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more >>>> support to push them as urgent matters as well. >>>> >>>> For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to >>>> consult with the stakeholders. >>>> >>>> All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired >>>> meeting >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, >>>>> one being contribution during the prep process. >>>>> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >>>>> ** the size of government delegations*** >>>>> >>>>> How many people can be in an official delegation? >>>>> >>>>> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS >>>>> folks to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. >>>>> So the question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an >>>>> official delegation?" >>>>> >>>>> N >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel < >>>>> mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>>>>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>>>>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>>>>> useful. >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Marília >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have >>>>>>> informally >>>>>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have >>>>>>> collected >>>>>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so >>>>>>> please >>>>>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>>>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>>>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>>>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>>>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>>>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>>>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>>>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>>>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>>>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if >>>>>>> criteria >>>>>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>>>>> > above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>>>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I support that proposal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Jan 27 12:17:12 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:17:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> Milton, Sorry for it took me bit longer than expected to come back to you, following your last email. I was not so interested to go into your last comment, and your great knowledge of French culture and History. I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. 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. But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas. That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind. The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html JC Le 10 janv. 2014 à 23:24, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > >Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, and other > >acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. > > You can ask the Department of Commerce about me coming to their rescue. I am not sure they view me as their savior. > > If you don’t like the US role, would it not be more constructive to make a specific proposals regarding how to detach the Department of Commerce from ICANN and the IANA contract? (as some of us have been advocating for years). If you don’t do this, would it be fair to conclude that you are more interested in public displays and posturing than in actually making things better? > > Are there any specific reform proposals to be found floating amongst the rhetorical perorations? Try communicating those and see if you get a better reception. > > Some of us do find your neo-DeGaullist Americo-phobic expressions quite entertaining, even riotously comical at times, but we read the list for other purposes. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Jan 27 13:14:42 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:14:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: + 1 JCN. You hit the bull's-eye. - - - On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Milton, > > Sorry for it took me bit longer than expected to come back to you, > following your last email. I was not so interested to go into your last > comment, and your great knowledge of French culture and History. > > I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame > the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, > and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully > out of scope and concern. > > 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. > > But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I > have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its > empty ideas. > > That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you > characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, > honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet > Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your > mind. > > The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of > Multistakeholderism > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html > > JC > > Le 10 janv. 2014 à 23:24, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > >Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, > and other > >acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. > > You can ask the Department of Commerce about me coming to their rescue. I > am not sure they view me as their savior. > > If you don’t like the US role, would it not be more constructive to make a > specific proposals regarding how to detach the Department of Commerce from > ICANN and the IANA contract? (as some of us have been advocating for > years). If you don’t do this, would it be fair to conclude that you are > more interested in public displays and posturing than in actually making > things better? > > Are there any specific reform proposals to be found floating amongst the > rhetorical perorations? Try communicating those and see if you get a better > reception. > > Some of us do find your neo-DeGaullist Americo-phobic expressions quite > entertaining, even riotously comical at times, but we read the list for > other purposes. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jan 27 16:29:06 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:29:06 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. > > 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. > > But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas. > > That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind. > > The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html JC - Interesting remarks (and blog post); one must admire your audacity in attempting to stick the label "asymmetric" onto a position which specifically calls for "all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." (perhaps your new "EQUAL IS ASYMMETRIC" slogan is presuming availability of a Ministry of Truth for promotion? ;-) After several readings, it would appear that the essence of your argument against the MS model is given in these two sentences: "The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. ... Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance." So: 1) Very fluffy - keeping alternatives at bay 2) Defends the status-quo, or thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight... and its current imbalance" Regarding the first point, Milton has invited you to provide some specific alternatives for reform.. will any be forthcoming? It's not very difficult to keep a non-existent alternative at bay, but that fault lies not with the existence of the Multistakeholder model... Regarding the second point, it completely discounts the reality that the Montevideo Statement has helped open up the dialogue about moving away from the present situation with a unique USG oversight role; this is the expected result of the call for equal footing for all participants (noted above). Perhaps you can explain how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight"? Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Jan 27 17:17:10 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:17:10 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> Message-ID: John, As written in my email to MM (maybe he will come back to me to talk baguette and béret) - Asymmetric is most appropriate indeed!! Thanks for the compliment. 12 governments are not all governments. Civil society? Political parties? Media? Users? Defense specialists? The NSA and other gentle surveillance tribes? You really want to get all stakeholders, so let bring these guys, they are part of the debate. - The objective of my post is not to present an alternative to the currents system but to denounce the way things are handled by the I* and the US camp i.e; the current system. From my understanding, there are a couple of strong alternatives in the making. They will not be established by ICANN et consorts. Maybe I will join and support them. The lists will learn more soon enough. The thoughtful evolution Chehadé is thinking of is, as he put himself, in "the US advantage". the threat to US business of a fragmented Internet is now the new argument to keep alternative at bay. To oppose bluntly multistakeholderism to multilateralism is a joke. To oppose ONE Internet to a fragmented Internet is another joke. - I don't know anything as fluffy as 'Equal Footing'. I confirm this. - I don't see the MS ever able to achieve a system with legitimacy delivering justice, and equity to all citizens equally. The invisible hand is taking care of where to put broadband, and where to have special traffic jam, and where to not be net neutral. Do you need me to quote Chehadé on his last remarks at MIT about what ultimately means MS to the participants??? A simple access and right to listen to the debate, with some in the audience being paid by the I* to applause when the sign 'Applause' is on. - The Multistakeholder model you are throwing at people over the last ten years has produced nothing new in the IG field. To the contrary, it has pushed the IGF on the verge of implosion, - these last days, the IGF seems to be declared knock-down for good, if we listen to Avri, Janet and others - leaving the road open to another fluffy box the 1net. So Historians and journalists like me can only observe that any alternative has so far been successfully rejected. - The Montevideo statement is made by the I*. Does that give to this statement any international value? Or any additional legitimacy? Or any sense of true Democratic change? (answers are all the way: no). SO the reality of that statement is close to nothing. Only was it made because of the international pressure that followed the NSA scandal. If it was not that scandal, the I* would have kept their peaceful coordinating meetings to a level of smart secrecy. "No, no it was public, but not publicized." - Coming now to the equal participation (do you mean "equal footing" or "fair nomination process", or "fair 1net noncom show") you tend to ignore that the reality of all that ICANN/Brazil process is fully biased, tainted with distrust and totally illegitimate - I know this is no much of your concern so far. You have been following the quarrels on the lists for the last two months. These quarrels are the product of the way things are orchestrated. Not of the people who would sincerely try to figure out a new IG. Are you sincere or naive when you ask me: how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight. Finally John, between you and me, why don't you react to Pisanty's horrific statements in an ISOC side event at ICANN48? Is that anything acceptable to you????? I do respect people of your caliber. But I cannot disagree more with the way you are conducting and handling the necessary changes in IG. JC PS: I am now waiting for the trolls, and other good guys to come… Que casino! Le 27 janv. 2014 à 22:29, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > >> I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. >> >> 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. >> >> But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas. >> >> That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind. >> >> The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html > > JC - > > Interesting remarks (and blog post); one must admire your audacity in attempting to stick the label > "asymmetric" onto a position which specifically calls for "all stakeholders, including all governments, > participate on an equal footing." (perhaps your new "EQUAL IS ASYMMETRIC" slogan is presuming > availability of a Ministry of Truth for promotion? ;-) > > After several readings, it would appear that the essence of your argument against the MS model is > given in these two sentences: > > "The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. ... Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance." > > So: > > 1) Very fluffy - keeping alternatives at bay > 2) Defends the status-quo, or thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight... and its current imbalance" > > Regarding the first point, Milton has invited you to provide some specific alternatives for reform.. > will any be forthcoming? It's not very difficult to keep a non-existent alternative at bay, but that fault > lies not with the existence of the Multistakeholder model... > > Regarding the second point, it completely discounts the reality that the Montevideo Statement has > helped open up the dialogue about moving away from the present situation with a unique USG > oversight role; this is the expected result of the call for equal footing for all participants (noted above). > > Perhaps you can explain how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can > be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight"? > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jan 27 18:42:20 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:42:20 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> Message-ID: <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F@istaff.org> On Jan 27, 2014, at 5:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > John, > > As written in my email to MM (maybe he will come back to me to talk baguette and béret) > > - Asymmetric is most appropriate indeed!! Thanks for the compliment. 12 governments are not all governments. I'm sorry - what restriction to 12 governments exists in the Multistakeholder model? (I believe that I've been following your replies, but it would help if you could go a bit slower for those of us who need it.) > - The objective of my post is not to present an alternative to the currents system but to denounce the way things are handled by the I* and the US camp i.e; the current system. You again conflate the I* leaders and the US camp... why? If one was in favor of status-quo, there is no reason to encourage discussion of evolution of the US oversight role, and yet this is precisely what the I* leaders did via the Montevideo Statement. > - I don't see the MS ever able to achieve a system with legitimacy delivering justice, and equity to all citizens equally. Propose a better alternative and the logical reasoning behind its structure. > - The Montevideo statement is made by the I*. Does that give to this statement any international value? Or any additional legitimacy? Or any sense of true Democratic change? (answers are all the way: no). SO the reality of that statement is close to nothing. Only was it made because of the international pressure that followed the NSA scandal. Actually, it was made for the same reason that you said made your statement: concerns about trust. Apparently, when you indicate that there's an issue with trust and that means looking at the USG role, that is wisdom being delivered to us all. However, when the I* leaders say the same thing, it means "close to nothing"? I honestly cannot understand how you can construe the Montevideo Statement as advocacy for the status quo, and my inquiries are trying to figure out the logical process that supports that assertion. > - Coming now to the equal participation (do you mean "equal footing" or "fair nomination process", or "fair 1net noncom show") you tend to ignore that the reality of all that ICANN/Brazil process is fully biased, tainted with distrust and totally illegitimate - I know this is no much of your concern so far. I actually have made no comment on the Brazil meeting (other than expressing some surprise about 1net's role) We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance, and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all. If you feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately. > Finally John, between you and me, why don't you react to Pisanty's horrific statements in an ISOC side event at ICANN48? Is that anything acceptable to you????? I don't find it necessary to respond to everyone who has different views than I; I generally only engage enough to understand their reasoning (if I can't discern from the writing) and sometimes to point it out if my reasoning produces a different outcome from similar facts. In Alejandro's case, I understand his reasoning well enough, even though I may view some things differently. In your case, I cannot as frequently discern your reasoning nor factual basis (which is why you get to enjoy more of my replies...) > I do respect people of your caliber. But I cannot disagree more with the way you are conducting and handling the necessary changes in IG. I'm not "conducting" anything; I'm participating on this list just like many others in this discussion. With respect to the necessary changes in IG, it would be good to hear what you consider necessary and why... This discussion of necessary changes in IG structures is taking place via an initiative that exists _because_ of the Montevideo Statement and I* leaders, and likely why the allegations (of defense of the status quo) are somewhat humorous when posted to this particular list. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jan 27 20:58:20 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:58:20 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F @istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > John; > let phrase the things differently for you to understand. Most in the world do not trust the Internet establishment anymore and this is for us a *problem*. You are part of this establishment and you tell us, "I either, but we have a solution".. Interesting perspective... I hadn't quite realized that the trust issues (that stem with pervasive surveillance) have extended to the various non-governmental Internet institutions. There is quite a bit of irony if that is the case, but perception is reality in such matters and can be tricky at times. > 1. people are suspicious because they do not trust you as competent enough since you people have built and manage the current situation, and you do not have implement your solution. Could you rephrase the above? I understand "not trusted as competent", but the reasoning that follows doesn't make sense to me. Specifically, what is "the current situation" that we built to which you refer? > 2. but they are ready to frienrly listen to you. And you say nothing. You use multiloaded words: globalization, MSism, equal footing, a semantic arsenal If they question you, you respond: "define your alternative" They have none: they have you and your solutions as a problem. . Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list. > Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use. Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as they are developed. >> We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance, > > Frankly, this list has no other interest than to prepare Sao Paulo because it may still more negatively impact the situation. No one is interested in the evolution of a vulnerable internet governance before one has decided of the evolution of the internet itself. That would appear to be fundemental impasse, as your assertion would imply that there is no reason to work on any Internet problems via this 1net mailing list, yet the mailing list is specifically about working collaboratively on Internet problems. >> and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all. If you feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately. > > Ah ... the "equal footing" is not in governing or in designing the internet, it is on discussing them on this list! > Now I understand the qui pro quo. Designing the Internet? The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 21:29:11 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:29:11 -0200 Subject: [governance] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial Message-ID: Dear all, This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. Regarding the substantive agenda: *1. **Work Plan of EMC* - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. *3. Participation criteria* - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? àYes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. *4) Public consultation* obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something - Inputs will be provided through the website - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website - All contributions will be treated equally - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. Day 1: 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony 11:30-13:00 – Principles 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks 16:30-18:00 – principles Day 2: 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. *Venue:* - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. Marília -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 21:33:06 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:33:06 +1200 Subject: [governance] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Marilia, Many thanks for this Indepth report. I look forward to seeing if there are additional observations by Carlos and Adam with respect to what transpired. We are grateful. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the > meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based > on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement > them. > > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was > cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with > discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and > finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the > room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam > reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > > *1. **Work Plan of EMC* > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that > each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote > participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to > the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion > in-between meetings and calls > > > > *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the > agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more > to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > > *3. Participation criteria* > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and > flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical > limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, > because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on > the table (see the section "venue" below). But a viable figure seems to be > between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder > groups. > > - The meeting will have like a "pre-registration". Individuals will > register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their > institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with > the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of > individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of "slots" > allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people > among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers > will be able to attend. > > - If "over-registration" happens with relation to any stakeholder group, > some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for > selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation > from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. > But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if > needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not > fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space > to minimize a problem "over-registration" of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. > Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These > dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to > assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly > asked and responded: > > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? àYes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The > organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was > informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG > related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not > EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and > participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will > be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > > *4) Public consultation* > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was > helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed > something > > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. > Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be > proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on > institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of > inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the > website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in > the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can > others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy > reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? - can others > confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on > principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The > drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants > would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a > multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. > Further discussion is needed. > > > > *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split > the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some > other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative > schedule was drafted today. > > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 - Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 - Principles > > 14:00-16:00 - Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 - principles > > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 - 11:00 - Frameworks > > 11:30 - 13:00 - Principles > > 14:00 - 16:00 - panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 - 18:00 - conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to > give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among > different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some "air" to evolve. > > > > *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was > the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > > *Venue:* > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just > become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels > around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. > Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is > negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information > on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to > the event (a "day zero"). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at > this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables > for flyers, publications and similar. > > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work > harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and > actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. > Really something to be improved. > > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 21:52:38 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:52:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Marilia, Thank you for your email, time and focus on this. Will this committee prepare any content for the meeting? Is there any group on the Brazil side working on principles? Will the submissions be available in the website after being done for consultation by other stakeholders? What will this or other committee do with the submissions? tks C On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the > meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based > on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement > them. > > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was > cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with > discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and > finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the > room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam > reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > > *1. **Work Plan of EMC* > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that > each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote > participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to > the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion > in-between meetings and calls > > > > *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the > agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more > to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > > *3. Participation criteria* > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and > flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical > limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, > because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on > the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be > between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder > groups. > > - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will > register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their > institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with > the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of > individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” > allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people > among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers > will be able to attend. > > - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, > some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for > selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation > from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. > But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if > needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not > fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space > to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. > Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These > dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to > assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly > asked and responded: > > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? àYes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The > organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was > informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG > related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not > EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and > participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will > be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > > *4) Public consultation* > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was > helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed > something > > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. > Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be > proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on > institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of > inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the > website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in > the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can > others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy > reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others > confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on > principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The > drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants > would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a > multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. > Further discussion is needed. > > > > *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split > the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some > other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative > schedule was drafted today. > > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 – Principles > > 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 – principles > > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks > > 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles > > 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to > give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among > different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. > > > > *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was > the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > > *Venue:* > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just > become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels > around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. > Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is > negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information > on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to > the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at > this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables > for flyers, publications and similar. > > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work > harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and > actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. > Really something to be improved. > > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > -- > *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 > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 27 23:46:33 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:16:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] New fiefdoms, and a political system to match Message-ID: <52E73629.60902@itforchange.net> Comcast and Charter want to split up Time Warner's cable markets http://j.mp/1d5gPN1 (Ars Technica) Comcast and Charter are working out a deal in which Charter would acquire Time Warner Cable (TWC) and then sell some of those assets to Comcast. Previously, Charter offered to buy Time Warner for $61.3 billion or $37.3 billion excluding TWC's debt. Time Warner management rejected the amount, but Charter is attempting to push an acquisition through by appealing to shareholders. Today, Bloomberg reported that Comcast "is near a deal to buy New York City, North Carolina, and New England cable assets from Charter Communications Inc. if shareholders approve Charter's takeover bid for Time Warner Cable Inc." (ends) How many got so thoroughly fooled (willingly?) about what WCIT and many global Internet governance battles are really about..... Sure, Internet, that bastion of freedom and multistakeholderism, should never be regulated! That would spoil the party, as a new capital-feudalism emerges, which also has its political seats reserved (as the Lords of yore had in the UK Parliament) through the new political system of multistakeholderism. So that they can make sure that no political process can come in their way ..... No comments here on the so called technical community (read ISOC's response to the recent US court verdict on net neutrality) and civil society.. ... It is a well designed cast.... Unless and until, of course , the people rise.... Be sure that these early conquests in the US will be repeated in other countries soon.. This is an irresistible political economy paradigm - irresistible for the rich classes, which are now globally networked at the same time as they hide their narrow interests rather well... It is a potent structure and strategy. And no one to bell the cat! parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Tue Jan 28 00:13:49 2014 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:13:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] New fiefdoms, and a political system to match In-Reply-To: <52E73629.60902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140128051349.5324938.46706.3292@ciencitec.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Jan 28 02:06:04 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:06:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Marilia You provides a very good overview preparations for a summit of Brazil. I think we can make some contributions in the DRC because we have our first meeting of local actors in February 18, 2014. 2014-01-28 Carolina Rossini > Marilia, > > Thank you for your email, time and focus on this. Will this committee > prepare any content for the meeting? Is there any group on the Brazil side > working on principles? Will the submissions be available in the website > after being done for consultation by other stakeholders? What will this or > other committee do with the submissions? tks > > C > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the >> meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based >> on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement >> them. >> >> >> >> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was >> cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with >> discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and >> finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the >> room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam >> reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Regarding the substantive agenda: >> >> >> >> *1. **Work Plan of EMC* >> >> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed >> that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote >> participation will be available. >> >> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to >> the website >> >> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >> >> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion >> in-between meetings and calls >> >> >> >> *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* >> >> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the >> agenda >> >> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more >> to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >> >> >> >> *3. Participation criteria* >> >> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality >> and flexibility >> >> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical >> limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, >> because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on >> the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be >> between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder >> groups. >> >> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will >> register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their >> institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with >> the theme. >> >> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of >> individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” >> allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people >> among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers >> will be able to attend. >> >> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, >> some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for >> selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation >> from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. >> But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if >> needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >> >> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not >> fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space >> to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. >> >> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. >> Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These >> dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to >> assess the scenario). >> >> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >> >> >> >> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly >> asked and responded: >> >> >> >> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and >> contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? >> à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all >> outcomes. >> >> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The >> organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was >> informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG >> related meetings are discussing this topic. >> >> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not >> EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and >> participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will >> be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >> >> >> >> *4) Public consultation* >> >> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I >> was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed >> something >> >> >> >> - Inputs will be provided through the website >> >> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda >> item. Not yet defined) >> >> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be >> proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on >> institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >> >> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of >> inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the >> website) >> >> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in >> the website >> >> - All contributions will be treated equally >> >> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can >> others please confirm?) >> >> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy >> reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others >> confirm?) >> >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on >> principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The >> drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants >> would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a >> multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. >> Further discussion is needed. >> >> >> >> *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* >> >> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split >> the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some >> other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic >> tentative schedule was drafted today. >> >> >> >> Day 1: >> >> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony >> >> 11:30-13:00 – Principles >> >> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks >> >> 16:30-18:00 – principles >> >> >> >> Day 2: >> >> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks >> >> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles >> >> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) >> >> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes >> >> >> >> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to >> give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among >> different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. >> >> >> >> *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* >> >> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic >> was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >> >> >> >> *Venue:* >> >> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just >> become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels >> around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. >> Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is >> negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information >> on that is coming soon. >> >> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to >> the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at >> this moment. >> >> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables >> for flyers, publications and similar. >> >> >> >> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to >> work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, >> and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the >> members. Really something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >> >> Marília >> >> -- >> *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 >> > > > > -- > *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 > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 28 04:54:48 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:54:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org, please forward) On the two topics: "internet governance principles" Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) BTW, I suspect the new website pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. Adam On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > 1. Work Plan of EMC > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls > > > 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > 3. Participation criteria > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. > > - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. > > - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > 4) Public consultation > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. > > > > 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 – Principles > > 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 – principles > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks > > 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles > > 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. > > > 6. Wrap-up, Next steps > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > Venue: > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > > -- > 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 28 07:45:57 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:15:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... Excerpt * Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was ** **reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any ** **threats? ** * There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower **But fortunately you are still alive with us.*** * Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to be afraid. **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German ** **companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what ** **is going on in a scientific and economic world.** I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic spying. End excerpt Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html Snowden-Interview in English - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR journalist Seipel in Moscow. *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was doing on legal grounds.* What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a circling of the wagons of government around the National Security Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their rights the political class circled around the security state and protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every single year. **Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?*** * It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or direct a change of their policies at any time. **For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects ** **and stores trillions of data.*** * Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. **You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household ** **name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working ** **until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly ** **collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive ** **moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why ** **did you do this?*** * /I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of // //National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to // //Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it // //can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust // //it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was // //no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one // //else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these // //programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is // //doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the // //public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were // //allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were // //prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a // //dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the // //FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority// // /When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. * ***We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is ** **a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this ** **alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What ** **agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?** The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering infrastructure. So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries. **In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not ** **allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the ** **Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA ** **can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could ** **exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.*** ** *If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the first place. **How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with ** **the NSA and with the Five Eyes?*** * I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I described it in our written interview was that the German Services and the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. **What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this ** **kind of instrument?*** * You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries that have access to "XKeyscore". **This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver ** **data of Germans to the NSA?*** * Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. **The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally ** **actually and our filter didn't work.*** * Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider or they hack a German router and they divert the traffic in a manner that let's them search through things they're saying "if I see what I think is a German talking to another German I'll drop it" but how do you know. You could say "well, these people are speaking the German language", "this IP address seems to be from a German company to another German company", but that's not accurate and they wouldn't dump all of that traffic because they'll get people who are targetes of interest, who are actively in Germany using German communications. So realistically what's happening is when they say there's no spying on Germans, they don't mean that German data isn't being gathered, they don't mean that records aren't being taken or stolen, what they mean is that they're not intentionally searching for German citizens. And that's sort of a fingers crossed behind the back promise, it's not reliable. **What about other European countries like Norway and Sweden for example ** **because we have a lot of I think under water cables going through the ** **Baltic Sea.** So this is sort of an expansion of the same idea. If the NSA isn't collecting information on German citizens in Germany are they as soon as it leaves German borders? And the answer is "yes". Any single communication that transits the internet, the NSA may intercept at multiple points, they might see it in Germany, they might see it in Sweden, they might see it in Norway or Finland, they might see it in Britain and they might see it in the United States. Any single one of these places that a German communication crosses it'll be ingested and added to the database. **So let's come to our southern European neighbours then. What about ** **Italy, what about France, what about Spain?** It's the same deal worldwide. **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German ** **companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what ** **is going on in a scientific and economic world.** I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic spying. If there's information at Siemens that they think would be beneficial to the national interests, not the national security of the United States, they'll go after that information and they'll take it. **There is this old saying "you do whatever you can do" so the NSA is ** **doing whatever is technically possible.*** * This is something that the President touched on last year where he said that just because we can do something, and this was in relation to tapping Angela Merkel's phone, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should, and that's exactly what's happened. The technological capabilities that have been provided because of sort of weak security standards in internet protocols and cellular communications networks have meant that intelligence services can create systems that see everything. *Nothing annoyed the German government more than the fact that the NSA tapped the private phone of the German Chancellor Merkel over the last 10 years obviously, suddenly this invisible surveillance was connected with a known face and was not connected with a kind of watery shady terrorist background: Obama now promised to stop snooping on Merkel which raises the question: did the NSA tape already previous governments including the previous chancellors and when did they do that and how long did they do this for?* This is a particularly difficult question for me to answer because there's information that I very strongly believe is in the public interest. However, as I've said before I prefer for journalists to make those decisions in advance, review the material themselves and decide whether or not the public value of this information outweighs the sort of reputational cost to the officials that ordered the surveillance. What I can say is we know Angela Merkel was monitored by the National Security Agency. The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to believe that she's the only prominent German face who the National Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials. *How does a young man from Elizabeth City in North Carolina, 30 years old, get in such a position in such a sensitive area?* That's a very difficult question to answer. In general, I would say it highlights the dangers of privatising government functions. I worked previously as an actual staff officer, a government employee for the Central Intelligence Agency but I've also served much more frequently as a contractor in a private capacity. What that means is you have private for profit companies doing inherently governmental work like targeted espionage, surveillance, compromising foreign systems and anyone who has the skills who can convince a private company that they have the qualifications to do so will be empowered by the government to do that and there's very little oversight, there's very little review. *Have you been one of these classical computer kids sitting red eyed during the nights in the age of 12, 15 and your father was knocking on your door and saying "switch off the light, it's getting late now"? Did you get your computer skills from that side or when did you get your first computer?* Right I definitely have had a ... shall we say a deep informal education in computers and electronic technology. They've always been fascinating and interesting to me. The characterisation of having your parents telling you to go to bed I would say is fair. *If one looks to the little public data of your life one discovers that you obviously wanted to join in May 2004 the Special Forces to fight in Iraq, what did motivate you at the time? You know, Special Forces, looking at you in the very moment, means grim fighting and it means probably killing and did you ever get to Iraq?* No I didn't get to Iraq ... one of the interesting things about the Special Forces are that they're not actually intended for direct combat, they're what's referred to as a force multiplier. They're inserted behind enemy lines, it's a squad that has a number of different specialties in it and they teach and enable the local population to resist or to support US forces in a way that allows the local population a chance to help determine their own destiny and I felt that was an inherently noble thing at the time. In hindsight some of the reasons that we went into Iraq were not well founded and I think did a disservice to everyone involved. *What happened to your adventure then? Did you stay long with them or what happened to you?* No I broke my legs when I was in training and was discharged. *So it was a short adventure in other words?* It's a short adventure. *In 2007 the CIA stationed you with a diplomatic cover in Geneva in Switzerland. Why did you join the CIA by the way?* I don't think I can actually answer that one on the record. *OK if it's what you have been doing there forget it but why did you join the CIA?* In many ways I think it's a continuation of trying to do everything I could to prosecute the public good in the most effective way and it's in line with the rest of my government service where I tried to use my technical skills in the most difficult positions I could find in the world and the CIA offered that. *If we go back Special Forces, CIA, NSA, it's not actually in the description of a human rights activist or somebody who becomes a whistleblower after this. What happens to you?* I think it tells a story and that's no matter how deeply an individual is embedded in the government, no matter how faithful to the government they are, no matter how strongly they believe in the causes of their government as I did during the Iraq war, people can learn, people can discover the line between appropriate government behaviour and actual wrongdoing and I think it became clear to me that that line had been crossed. *You worked for the NSA through a private contractor with the name Booze Allen Hamilton, one of the big ones in the business. What is the advantage for the US Government or the CIA to work through a private contractor to outsource a central government function?* The contracting culture of the national security community in the United States is a complex topic. It's driven by a number of interests between primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no oversight, no auditing, the government didn't even know they were gone. *At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here in Russia.* The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be fully safe until these systems have changed. *After your revelations none of the European countries really offered you asylum. Where did you apply in Europe for asylum?* I can't remember the list of countries with any specificity because there were many of them but France, Germany were definitely in there as was the UK. A number of European countries, all of whom unfortunately felt that doing the right thing was less important than supporting US political concerns. *One reaction to the NSA snooping is in the very moment that countries like Germany are thinking to create national internets an attempt to force internet companies to keep their data in their own country. Does this work?* It's not gonna stop the NSA. Let's put it that way. The NSA goes where the data is. If the NSA can pull text messages out of telecommunication networks in China, they can probably manage to get facebook messages out of Germany. Ultimately the solution to that is not to try to stick everything in a walled garden. Although that does raise the level of sophistication and complexity of taking the information. It's also much better simply to secure the information internationally against everyone rather than playing "let's move the data". Moving the data isn't fixing the problem. Securing the data is the problem. **President Obama in the very moment obviously doesn't care too much ** **about the message of the leak. And together with the NSA they do care ** **very much more about catching the messenger in that context. Obama asked ** **the Russian president several times to extradite you. But Putin did not. ** **It looks that you will stay to the rest of your life probably in Russia. ** **How do you feel about Russia in that context and is there a solution to ** **this problem.*** * I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these leaks didn't cause harm in fact they served the public good. Because of that I think it will be very difficult to maintain sort of an ongoing campaign of persecution against someone who the public agrees serve the public interest. **The New York Times wrote a very long comment and demanded clemency for ** **you. The headline "Edward Snowden Whistleblower" and I quote from that: ** **"The public learned in great detail how the agency has extended its ** **mandate and abused its authority." And the New York Times closes: ** **"President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr ** **Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home." Did ** **you get a call in between from the White House?*** * I've never received a call from the White House and I am not waiting by the phone. But I would welcome the opportunity to talk about how we can bring this to a conclusion that serves the interest of all parties. I think it's clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn't take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the history of their country where the law provided the government to do things which were not right. **President Obama obviously is in the very moment not quite convinced of ** **that because he said to you are charged with three felonies and I quote: ** **"If you Edward Snowden believe in what you did you should go back to ** **America appear before the court with a lawyer and make your case." Is ** **this the solution?** It's interesting because he mentions three felonies. What he doesn't say is that the crimes that he has charged me with are crimes that don't allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to their benefit. The espionage act was never intended, it's from 1918, it was never intended to prosecute journalistic sources, people who are informing the newspapers about information that's of public interest. It was intended for people who are selling documents in secret to foreign governments who are bombing bridges who are sabotaging communications not people who are serving the public good. So it's I would say illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face the music when he knows the music is a show trial. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 07:50:45 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:20:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <051287B1-C2F2-4A1D-A72D-1768EAABD801@hserus.net> Find me another country that does not engage in espionage, will you? --srs (iPad) > On 28-Jan-2014, at 18:15, Guru गुरु wrote: > > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... > > Excerpt > > Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was > reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any > threats? > > There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an > article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they > interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security > Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and > what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These > individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they > would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me > as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower > > *But fortunately you are still alive with us.* > > Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what > I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to > be afraid. > > *Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German > companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what > is going on in a scientific and economic world.* > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > > End excerpt > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net > > > Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html > > Snowden-Interview in English > - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel > > Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass > surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR > journalist Seipel in Moscow. > > *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures > is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the > time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation > with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and > President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was > doing on legal grounds.* > > What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a > circling of the wagons of government around the National Security > Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their > rights the political class circled around the security state and > protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the > initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the > President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right > balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit > that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of > the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every > single year. > > *Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?* > > It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor > changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President > created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from > national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had > every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best > possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no > value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and > they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that > the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata > programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance > -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab > driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we > don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take > a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They > go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under > the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or > direct a change of their policies at any time. > > *For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects > and stores trillions of data.* > > Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a > purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card > somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a > good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been > suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a > suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's > committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be > able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the > investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality > of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. > > *You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household > name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working > until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly > collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive > moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why > did you do this?* > > I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of > National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to > Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it > can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust > it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was > no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one > else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these > programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is > doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the > public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were > allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were > prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a > dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the > FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority > > When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit > down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap > the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and > if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the > NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. > > *We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is > a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this > alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What > agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?* > > The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II > era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together > to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering > infrastructure. > > So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we > have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New > Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what > sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer > to the laws of its own countries. > > *In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not > allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the > Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA > can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could > exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.* > > If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and > point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying > that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of > key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the > collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data > on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering > enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that > they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for > UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements > between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target > British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of > agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put > legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can > be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British > citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share > that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from > spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but > it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that > the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when > people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the > first place. > > *How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with > the NSA and with the Five Eyes?* > > I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I > described it in our written interview was that the German Services and > the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, > the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the > tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in > services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major > programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's > called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to > look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. > > *What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this > kind of instrument?* > > You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email > address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any > computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that > you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place > throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's > information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". > Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was > interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say > you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that > network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I > can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and > I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique > to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort > of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you > and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their > software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries > that have access to "XKeyscore". > > *This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver > data of Germans to the NSA?* > > Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. > Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because > it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the > distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what > should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the > world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions > and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily > lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting > websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's > reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. > Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. > > *The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally > actually and our filter didn't work.* > > Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two > things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the > NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 28 08:17:03 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:17:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: you can also see the whole interview (undubbed) in English here: https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en Best regards, Lorena 2014-01-28 Guru गुरु > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to > believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... > > Excerpt > > * Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was * > *reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any * > *threats? * > > There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an > article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they > interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security > Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and > what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These > individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they > would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me > as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower > > **But fortunately you are still alive with us.** > > Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what > I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to > be afraid. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > > End excerpt > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net > > > Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html > > Snowden-Interview in English > - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel > > Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass > surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR > journalist Seipel in Moscow. > > *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures > is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the > time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation > with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and > President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was > doing on legal grounds.* > > What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a > circling of the wagons of government around the National Security > Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their > rights the political class circled around the security state and > protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the > initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the > President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right > balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit > that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of > the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every > single year. > > **Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?** > > It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor > changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President > created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from > national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had > every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best > possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no > value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and > they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that > the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata > programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance > -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab > driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we > don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take > a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They > go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under > the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or > direct a change of their policies at any time. > > **For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects * > *and stores trillions of data.** > > Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a > purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card > somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a > good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been > suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a > suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's > committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be > able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the > investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality > of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. > > **You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household * > *name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working * > *until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly * > *collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive * > *moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why * > *did you do this?** > > *I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of * > *National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to * > *Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it * > *can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust * > *it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was * > *no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one * > *else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these * > *programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is * > *doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the * > *public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were * > *allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were * > *prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a * > *dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the * > *FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority* > > When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit > down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap > the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and > if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the > NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. > > **We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is * > *a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this * > *alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What * > *agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?** > > The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II > era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together > to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering > infrastructure. > > So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we > have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New > Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what > sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer > to the laws of its own countries. > > **In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not * > *allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the * > *Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA * > *can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could * > *exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.** > > If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and > point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying > that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of > key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the > collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data > on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering > enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that > they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for > UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements > between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target > British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of > agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put > legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can > be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British > citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share > that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from > spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but > it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that > the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when > people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the > first place. > > **How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with * > *the NSA and with the Five Eyes?** > > I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I > described it in our written interview was that the German Services and > the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, > the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the > tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in > services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major > programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's > called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to > look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. > > **What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this * > *kind of instrument?** > > You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email > address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any > computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that > you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place > throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's > information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". > Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was > interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say > you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that > network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I > can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and > I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique > to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort > of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you > and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their > software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries > that have access to "XKeyscore". > > **This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver * > *data of Germans to the NSA?** > > Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. > Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because > it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the > distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what > should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the > world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions > and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily > lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting > websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's > reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. > Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. > > **The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally * > *actually and our filter didn't work.** > > Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two > things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the > NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider or they > hack a German router and they divert the traffic in a manner that let's > them search through things they're saying "if I see what I think is a > German talking to another German I'll drop it" but how do you know. You > could say "well, these people are speaking the German language", "this > IP address seems to be from a German company to another German company", > but that's not accurate and they wouldn't dump all of that traffic > because they'll get people who are targetes of interest, who are > actively in Germany using German communications. So realistically what's > happening is when they say there's no spying on Germans, they don't mean > that German data isn't being gathered, they don't mean that records > aren't being taken or stolen, what they mean is that they're not > intentionally searching for German citizens. And that's sort of a > fingers crossed behind the back promise, it's not reliable. > > **What about other European countries like Norway and Sweden for example * > *because we have a lot of I think under water cables going through the * > *Baltic Sea.** > > So this is sort of an expansion of the same idea. If the NSA isn't > collecting information on German citizens in Germany are they as soon as > it leaves German borders? And the answer is "yes". Any single > communication that transits the internet, the NSA may intercept at > multiple points, they might see it in Germany, they might see it in > Sweden, they might see it in Norway or Finland, they might see it in > Britain and they might see it in the United States. Any single one of > these places that a German communication crosses it'll be ingested and > added to the database. > > **So let's come to our southern European neighbours then. What about * > *Italy, what about France, what about Spain?** > > It's the same deal worldwide. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > If there's information at Siemens that they think would be beneficial to > the national interests, not the national security of the United States, > they'll go after that information and they'll take it. > > **There is this old saying "you do whatever you can do" so the NSA is * > *doing whatever is technically possible.** > > This is something that the President touched on last year where he said > that just because we can do something, and this was in relation to > tapping Angela Merkel's phone, just because we can do something doesn't > mean that we should, and that's exactly what's happened. The > technological capabilities that have been provided because of sort of > weak security standards in internet protocols and cellular > communications networks have meant that intelligence services can create > systems that see everything. > > *Nothing annoyed the German government more than the fact that the NSA > tapped the private phone of the German Chancellor Merkel over the last > 10 years obviously, suddenly this invisible surveillance was connected > with a known face and was not connected with a kind of watery shady > terrorist background: Obama now promised to stop snooping on Merkel > which raises the question: did the NSA tape already previous governments > including the previous chancellors and when did they do that and how > long did they do this for?* > > This is a particularly difficult question for me to answer because > there's information that I very strongly believe is in the public > interest. However, as I've said before I prefer for journalists to make > those decisions in advance, review the material themselves and decide > whether or not the public value of this information outweighs the sort > of reputational cost to the officials that ordered the surveillance. > What I can say is we know Angela Merkel was monitored by the National > Security Agency. The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she > is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to > believe that she's the only prominent German face who the National > Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that > if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that > they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent > officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials. > > *How does a young man from Elizabeth City in North Carolina, 30 years > old, get in such a position in such a sensitive area?* > > That's a very difficult question to answer. In general, I would say it > highlights the dangers of privatising government functions. I worked > previously as an actual staff officer, a government employee for the > Central Intelligence Agency but I've also served much more frequently as > a contractor in a private capacity. What that means is you have private > for profit companies doing inherently governmental work like targeted > espionage, surveillance, compromising foreign systems and anyone who has > the skills who can convince a private company that they have the > qualifications to do so will be empowered by the government to do that > and there's very little oversight, there's very little review. > > *Have you been one of these classical computer kids sitting red eyed > during the nights in the age of 12, 15 and your father was knocking on > your door and saying "switch off the light, it's getting late now"? Did > you get your computer skills from that side or when did you get your > first computer?* > > Right I definitely have had a ... shall we say a deep informal education > in computers and electronic technology. They've always been fascinating > and interesting to me. The characterisation of having your parents > telling you to go to bed I would say is fair. > > *If one looks to the little public data of your life one discovers that > you obviously wanted to join in May 2004 the Special Forces to fight in > Iraq, what did motivate you at the time? You know, Special Forces, > looking at you in the very moment, means grim fighting and it means > probably killing and did you ever get to Iraq?* > > No I didn't get to Iraq ... one of the interesting things about the > Special Forces are that they're not actually intended for direct combat, > they're what's referred to as a force multiplier. They're inserted > behind enemy lines, it's a squad that has a number of different > specialties in it and they teach and enable the local population to > resist or to support US forces in a way that allows the local population > a chance to help determine their own destiny and I felt that was an > inherently noble thing at the time. In hindsight some of the reasons > that we went into Iraq were not well founded and I think did a > disservice to everyone involved. > > *What happened to your adventure then? Did you stay long with them or > what happened to you?* > > No I broke my legs when I was in training and was discharged. > > *So it was a short adventure in other words?* > > It's a short adventure. > > *In 2007 the CIA stationed you with a diplomatic cover in Geneva in > Switzerland. Why did you join the CIA by the way?* > > I don't think I can actually answer that one on the record. > > *OK if it's what you have been doing there forget it but why did you > join the CIA?* > > In many ways I think it's a continuation of trying to do everything I > could to prosecute the public good in the most effective way and it's in > line with the rest of my government service where I tried to use my > technical skills in the most difficult positions I could find in the > world and the CIA offered that. > > *If we go back Special Forces, CIA, NSA, it's not actually in the > description of a human rights activist or somebody who becomes a > whistleblower after this. What happens to you?* > > I think it tells a story and that's no matter how deeply an individual > is embedded in the government, no matter how faithful to the government > they are, no matter how strongly they believe in the causes of their > government as I did during the Iraq war, people can learn, people can > discover the line between appropriate government behaviour and actual > wrongdoing and I think it became clear to me that that line had been > crossed. > > *You worked for the NSA through a private contractor with the name Booze > Allen Hamilton, one of the big ones in the business. What is the > advantage for the US Government or the CIA to work through a private > contractor to outsource a central government function?* > > The contracting culture of the national security community in the United > States is a complex topic. It's driven by a number of interests between > primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same > time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well > funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you > end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by > private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced > from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze > Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to > what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that > they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no > oversight, no auditing, the government didn't even know they were gone. > > *At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence > communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here > in Russia.* > > The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December > said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications > at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any > kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's > help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for > Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor > who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, > to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they > see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they > think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not > their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be > fully safe until these systems have changed. > > *After your revelations none of the European countries really offered > you asylum. Where did you apply in Europe for asylum?* > > I can't remember the list of countries with any specificity because > there were many of them but France, Germany were definitely in there as > was the UK. A number of European countries, all of whom unfortunately > felt that doing the right thing was less important than supporting US > political concerns. > > *One reaction to the NSA snooping is in the very moment that countries > like Germany are thinking to create national internets an attempt to > force internet companies to keep their data in their own country. Does > this work?* > > It's not gonna stop the NSA. Let's put it that way. The NSA goes where > the data is. If the NSA can pull text messages out of telecommunication > networks in China, they can probably manage to get facebook messages out > of Germany. Ultimately the solution to that is not to try to stick > everything in a walled garden. Although that does raise the level of > sophistication and complexity of taking the information. It's also much > better simply to secure the information internationally against everyone > rather than playing "let's move the data". Moving the data isn't fixing > the problem. Securing the data is the problem. > > **President Obama in the very moment obviously doesn't care too much * > *about the message of the leak. And together with the NSA they do care * > *very much more about catching the messenger in that context. Obama asked * > *the Russian president several times to extradite you. But Putin did not. * > *It looks that you will stay to the rest of your life probably in Russia. * > *How do you feel about Russia in that context and is there a solution to * > *this problem.** > > I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these leaks didn't cause > harm in fact they served the public good. Because of that I think it > will be very difficult to maintain sort of an ongoing campaign of > persecution against someone who the public agrees serve the public > interest. > > **The New York Times wrote a very long comment and demanded clemency for * > *you. The headline "Edward Snowden Whistleblower" and I quote from that: * > *"The public learned in great detail how the agency has extended its * > *mandate and abused its authority." And the New York Times closes: * > *"President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr * > *Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home." Did * > *you get a call in between from the White House?** > > I've never received a call from the White House and I am not waiting by > the phone. But I would welcome the opportunity to talk about how we can > bring this to a conclusion that serves the interest of all parties. I > think it's clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct > from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn't > take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the > history of their country where the law provided the government to do > things which were not right. > > **President Obama obviously is in the very moment not quite convinced of * > *that because he said to you are charged with three felonies and I quote: * > *"If you Edward Snowden believe in what you did you should go back to * > *America appear before the court with a lawyer and make your case." Is * > *this the solution?** > > It's interesting because he mentions three felonies. What he doesn't say > is that the crimes that he has charged me with are crimes that don't > allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an > open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to > their benefit. The espionage act was never intended, it's from 1918, it > was never intended to prosecute journalistic sources, people who are > informing the newspapers about information that's of public interest. It > was intended for people who are selling documents in secret to foreign > governments who are bombing bridges who are sabotaging communications > not people who are serving the public good. So it's I would say > illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face > the music when he knows the music is a show trial. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jan 28 08:42:29 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:42:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <94CDE8F7-9604-42E1-84C3-1CE4D2BEF0E7@istaff.org> On Jan 28, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... If, by "status quo", you are referring to Mr. Snowden's remarks re threats to his life and economic espionage, the former is detestable (no person should face risk of death due to their well-intended remarks) but I have serious doubts whether any change in the status quo of Internet governance arrangements will impact that in the least. Same with respect to economic espionage, the unique US role in Internet governance does not appear to enable or facilitate the pervasive monitoring that has been revealed, so changing that role will not impact it at all. (The only good news on this front is that the IETF has taken up the issue of technical measures to prevent monitoring via its "perpass" efforts - ) If, by "status quo", you mean the unique role served by the USG in oversight of technical coordination of the Internet, then I'll note that I have seen very few folks on the 1net list support such a position, and there is no meaningful way that the Montevideo Statement can be read to support such a position. I believe there is a large number of ways to change the current structures to address the situation of the unique USG role in Internet coordination, and it's hoped that actual discussion of alternatives may occur on this list in the near future (once we all can move beyond posturing and get back to work on a problem statement...) /John Disclaimer: My views alone (and definitely not in support of the status quo) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jan 28 09:57:12 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:57:12 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: I just got this in my email in a louder version: "Maybe if we all email each other a copy of the [US] constitution, the [US] NSA will finally read it." Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 28 January 2014 06:45, Guru गुरु wrote: > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to > believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... > > Excerpt > > * Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was * > *reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any * > *threats? * > > There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an > article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they > interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security > Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and > what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These > individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they > would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me > as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower > > **But fortunately you are still alive with us.** > > Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what > I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to > be afraid. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > > End excerpt > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net > > > Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html > > Snowden-Interview in English > - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel > > Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass > surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR > journalist Seipel in Moscow. > > *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures > is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the > time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation > with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and > President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was > doing on legal grounds.* > > What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a > circling of the wagons of government around the National Security > Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their > rights the political class circled around the security state and > protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the > initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the > President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right > balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit > that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of > the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every > single year. > > **Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?** > > It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor > changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President > created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from > national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had > every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best > possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no > value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and > they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that > the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata > programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance > -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab > driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we > don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take > a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They > go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under > the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or > direct a change of their policies at any time. > > **For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects * > *and stores trillions of data.** > > Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a > purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card > somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a > good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been > suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a > suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's > committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be > able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the > investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality > of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. > > **You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household * > *name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working * > *until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly * > *collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive * > *moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why * > *did you do this?** > > *I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of * > *National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to * > *Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it * > *can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust * > *it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was * > *no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one * > *else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these * > *programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is * > *doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the * > *public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were * > *allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were * > *prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a * > *dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the * > *FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority* > > When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit > down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap > the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and > if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the > NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. > > **We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is * > *a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this * > *alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What * > *agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?** > > The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II > era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together > to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering > infrastructure. > > So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we > have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New > Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what > sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer > to the laws of its own countries. > > **In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not * > *allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the * > *Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA * > *can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could * > *exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.** > > If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and > point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying > that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of > key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the > collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data > on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering > enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that > they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for > UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements > between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target > British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of > agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put > legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can > be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British > citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share > that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from > spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but > it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that > the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when > people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the > first place. > > **How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with * > *the NSA and with the Five Eyes?** > > I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I > described it in our written interview was that the German Services and > the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, > the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the > tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in > services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major > programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's > called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to > look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. > > **What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this * > *kind of instrument?** > > You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email > address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any > computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that > you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place > throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's > information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". > Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was > interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say > you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that > network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I > can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and > I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique > to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort > of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you > and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their > software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries > that have access to "XKeyscore". > > **This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver * > *data of Germans to the NSA?** > > Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. > Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because > it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the > distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what > should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the > world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions > and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily > lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting > websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's > reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. > Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. > > **The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally * > *actually and our filter didn't work.** > > Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two > things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the > NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider or they > hack a German router and they divert the traffic in a manner that let's > them search through things they're saying "if I see what I think is a > German talking to another German I'll drop it" but how do you know. You > could say "well, these people are speaking the German language", "this > IP address seems to be from a German company to another German company", > but that's not accurate and they wouldn't dump all of that traffic > because they'll get people who are targetes of interest, who are > actively in Germany using German communications. So realistically what's > happening is when they say there's no spying on Germans, they don't mean > that German data isn't being gathered, they don't mean that records > aren't being taken or stolen, what they mean is that they're not > intentionally searching for German citizens. And that's sort of a > fingers crossed behind the back promise, it's not reliable. > > **What about other European countries like Norway and Sweden for example * > *because we have a lot of I think under water cables going through the * > *Baltic Sea.** > > So this is sort of an expansion of the same idea. If the NSA isn't > collecting information on German citizens in Germany are they as soon as > it leaves German borders? And the answer is "yes". Any single > communication that transits the internet, the NSA may intercept at > multiple points, they might see it in Germany, they might see it in > Sweden, they might see it in Norway or Finland, they might see it in > Britain and they might see it in the United States. Any single one of > these places that a German communication crosses it'll be ingested and > added to the database. > > **So let's come to our southern European neighbours then. What about * > *Italy, what about France, what about Spain?** > > It's the same deal worldwide. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > If there's information at Siemens that they think would be beneficial to > the national interests, not the national security of the United States, > they'll go after that information and they'll take it. > > **There is this old saying "you do whatever you can do" so the NSA is * > *doing whatever is technically possible.** > > This is something that the President touched on last year where he said > that just because we can do something, and this was in relation to > tapping Angela Merkel's phone, just because we can do something doesn't > mean that we should, and that's exactly what's happened. The > technological capabilities that have been provided because of sort of > weak security standards in internet protocols and cellular > communications networks have meant that intelligence services can create > systems that see everything. > > *Nothing annoyed the German government more than the fact that the NSA > tapped the private phone of the German Chancellor Merkel over the last > 10 years obviously, suddenly this invisible surveillance was connected > with a known face and was not connected with a kind of watery shady > terrorist background: Obama now promised to stop snooping on Merkel > which raises the question: did the NSA tape already previous governments > including the previous chancellors and when did they do that and how > long did they do this for?* > > This is a particularly difficult question for me to answer because > there's information that I very strongly believe is in the public > interest. However, as I've said before I prefer for journalists to make > those decisions in advance, review the material themselves and decide > whether or not the public value of this information outweighs the sort > of reputational cost to the officials that ordered the surveillance. > What I can say is we know Angela Merkel was monitored by the National > Security Agency. The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she > is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to > believe that she's the only prominent German face who the National > Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that > if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that > they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent > officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials. > > *How does a young man from Elizabeth City in North Carolina, 30 years > old, get in such a position in such a sensitive area?* > > That's a very difficult question to answer. In general, I would say it > highlights the dangers of privatising government functions. I worked > previously as an actual staff officer, a government employee for the > Central Intelligence Agency but I've also served much more frequently as > a contractor in a private capacity. What that means is you have private > for profit companies doing inherently governmental work like targeted > espionage, surveillance, compromising foreign systems and anyone who has > the skills who can convince a private company that they have the > qualifications to do so will be empowered by the government to do that > and there's very little oversight, there's very little review. > > *Have you been one of these classical computer kids sitting red eyed > during the nights in the age of 12, 15 and your father was knocking on > your door and saying "switch off the light, it's getting late now"? Did > you get your computer skills from that side or when did you get your > first computer?* > > Right I definitely have had a ... shall we say a deep informal education > in computers and electronic technology. They've always been fascinating > and interesting to me. The characterisation of having your parents > telling you to go to bed I would say is fair. > > *If one looks to the little public data of your life one discovers that > you obviously wanted to join in May 2004 the Special Forces to fight in > Iraq, what did motivate you at the time? You know, Special Forces, > looking at you in the very moment, means grim fighting and it means > probably killing and did you ever get to Iraq?* > > No I didn't get to Iraq ... one of the interesting things about the > Special Forces are that they're not actually intended for direct combat, > they're what's referred to as a force multiplier. They're inserted > behind enemy lines, it's a squad that has a number of different > specialties in it and they teach and enable the local population to > resist or to support US forces in a way that allows the local population > a chance to help determine their own destiny and I felt that was an > inherently noble thing at the time. In hindsight some of the reasons > that we went into Iraq were not well founded and I think did a > disservice to everyone involved. > > *What happened to your adventure then? Did you stay long with them or > what happened to you?* > > No I broke my legs when I was in training and was discharged. > > *So it was a short adventure in other words?* > > It's a short adventure. > > *In 2007 the CIA stationed you with a diplomatic cover in Geneva in > Switzerland. Why did you join the CIA by the way?* > > I don't think I can actually answer that one on the record. > > *OK if it's what you have been doing there forget it but why did you > join the CIA?* > > In many ways I think it's a continuation of trying to do everything I > could to prosecute the public good in the most effective way and it's in > line with the rest of my government service where I tried to use my > technical skills in the most difficult positions I could find in the > world and the CIA offered that. > > *If we go back Special Forces, CIA, NSA, it's not actually in the > description of a human rights activist or somebody who becomes a > whistleblower after this. What happens to you?* > > I think it tells a story and that's no matter how deeply an individual > is embedded in the government, no matter how faithful to the government > they are, no matter how strongly they believe in the causes of their > government as I did during the Iraq war, people can learn, people can > discover the line between appropriate government behaviour and actual > wrongdoing and I think it became clear to me that that line had been > crossed. > > *You worked for the NSA through a private contractor with the name Booze > Allen Hamilton, one of the big ones in the business. What is the > advantage for the US Government or the CIA to work through a private > contractor to outsource a central government function?* > > The contracting culture of the national security community in the United > States is a complex topic. It's driven by a number of interests between > primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same > time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well > funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you > end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by > private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced > from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze > Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to > what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that > they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no > oversight, no auditing, the government didn't even know they were gone. > > *At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence > communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here > in Russia.* > > The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December > said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications > at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any > kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's > help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for > Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor > who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, > to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they > see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they > think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not > their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be > fully safe until these systems have changed. > > *After your revelations none of the European countries really offered > you asylum. Where did you apply in Europe for asylum?* > > I can't remember the list of countries with any specificity because > there were many of them but France, Germany were definitely in there as > was the UK. A number of European countries, all of whom unfortunately > felt that doing the right thing was less important than supporting US > political concerns. > > *One reaction to the NSA snooping is in the very moment that countries > like Germany are thinking to create national internets an attempt to > force internet companies to keep their data in their own country. Does > this work?* > > It's not gonna stop the NSA. Let's put it that way. The NSA goes where > the data is. If the NSA can pull text messages out of telecommunication > networks in China, they can probably manage to get facebook messages out > of Germany. Ultimately the solution to that is not to try to stick > everything in a walled garden. Although that does raise the level of > sophistication and complexity of taking the information. It's also much > better simply to secure the information internationally against everyone > rather than playing "let's move the data". Moving the data isn't fixing > the problem. Securing the data is the problem. > > **President Obama in the very moment obviously doesn't care too much * > *about the message of the leak. And together with the NSA they do care * > *very much more about catching the messenger in that context. Obama asked * > *the Russian president several times to extradite you. But Putin did not. * > *It looks that you will stay to the rest of your life probably in Russia. * > *How do you feel about Russia in that context and is there a solution to * > *this problem.** > > I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these leaks didn't cause > harm in fact they served the public good. Because of that I think it > will be very difficult to maintain sort of an ongoing campaign of > persecution against someone who the public agrees serve the public > interest. > > **The New York Times wrote a very long comment and demanded clemency for * > *you. The headline "Edward Snowden Whistleblower" and I quote from that: * > *"The public learned in great detail how the agency has extended its * > *mandate and abused its authority." And the New York Times closes: * > *"President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr * > *Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home." Did * > *you get a call in between from the White House?** > > I've never received a call from the White House and I am not waiting by > the phone. But I would welcome the opportunity to talk about how we can > bring this to a conclusion that serves the interest of all parties. I > think it's clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct > from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn't > take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the > history of their country where the law provided the government to do > things which were not right. > > **President Obama obviously is in the very moment not quite convinced of * > *that because he said to you are charged with three felonies and I quote: * > *"If you Edward Snowden believe in what you did you should go back to * > *America appear before the court with a lawyer and make your case." Is * > *this the solution?** > > It's interesting because he mentions three felonies. What he doesn't say > is that the crimes that he has charged me with are crimes that don't > allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an > open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to > their benefit. The espionage act was never intended, it's from 1918, it > was never intended to prosecute journalistic sources, people who are > informing the newspapers about information that's of public interest. It > was intended for people who are selling documents in secret to foreign > governments who are bombing bridges who are sabotaging communications > not people who are serving the public good. So it's I would say > illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face > the music when he knows the music is a show trial. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Jan 28 12:05:15 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:05:15 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F @istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> John, Le 28 janv. 2014 à 02:58, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > >> John; >> let phrase the things differently for you to understand. Most in the world do not trust the Internet establishment anymore and this is for us a *problem*. You are part of this establishment and you tell us, "I either, but we have a solution".. > > Interesting perspective... I hadn't quite realized that the trust issues (that > stem with pervasive surveillance) have extended to the various non-governmental > Internet institutions. If I may, it is time to realize it > > There is quite a bit of irony if that is the case, but perception is reality in > such matters and can be tricky at times. Agree. Your perception, my perception, anyone's perception... > >> 1. people are suspicious because they do not trust you as competent enough since you people have built and manage the current situation, and you do not have implement your solution. > > Could you rephrase the above? I understand "not trusted as competent", but > the reasoning that follows doesn't make sense to me. Specifically, what is > "the current situation" that we built to which you refer? IT seems so easy for you to understand the rude language of Pisanty, and more difficult to get view of others who do not share your approach, and reading of events and facts. If you have no idea of the current situation (over the last two years at least, then, what are you looking at?) I am in despair for you. Just kidding. > >> 2. but they are ready to frienrly listen to you. And you say nothing. You use multiloaded words: globalization, MSism, equal footing, a semantic arsenal If they question you, you respond: "define your alternative" They have none: they have you and your solutions as a problem. . > > Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate > on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list. 1net has no legitimacy at all (which one has it, apart from being funded by ICANN? Do you think that ICANN should have put a little bit more money into the IGF? Even Saint Amour back in December said the I* needed to give funding to the IGF - to calm it maybe?. I would disagree with both Michel and you over the fact that there are no alternative. There are other options. At least I can see two of them. You will be informed soon enough, and the dialogue might start again, but not under a strict control and ruling by the I* and their Asymmetrics priests whether Cerf, Pisanty or any other. But again, as I wrote in my post it is really difficult to collaborate with a group of people refusing to have common definitions, refusing to acknowledge that the game has been biased for sometime. It seems like there is no honest desire to come a neutral table for a discussion to deliver something else than what the I* and Asymmetrics are expecting. A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins the last drop of trust. > >> Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use. > > Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can > be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as > they are developed. As soon as we enter your 'game', you get your smile back! Interesting. In Michel suggestion, I do understand that he does not understand clearly what is 1net about? A problem for anyone to feel confident to enter that arena. BUt if we accept and say : "Let's go and seat on an equal footing basis to a 1net table…" then we might see how ready and open you are to find a new IG model. Haven't you the impression that we have seen enough sterile thinking from the Asymmetrics. Think of Pisanty and his radicalism. He is at war, and you understand it, right? 1net is another fluffy bizzarerie, among many others the Asymmetrics have invented to keep the imbalance in place. > >>> We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance, >> >> Frankly, this list has no other interest than to prepare Sao Paulo because it may still more negatively impact the situation. No one is interested in the evolution of a vulnerable internet governance before one has decided of the evolution of the internet itself. > > That would appear to be fundemental impasse, as your assertion would imply that > there is no reason to work on any Internet problems via this 1net mailing list, yet > the mailing list is specifically about working collaboratively on Internet problems. During the first High Level panel in London organized by ICANN, the Brazil summit was of very little concern to many participants from the feedback I have from at least two participants. CI won't give my source on this but I am very positive. Chehadé and others have only in mind the next stages of the WSIS where they see the real danger coming from (International law). And it seems, again from an observing point of view, that on a political level, this is the right way to go. Give Rousseff a little shine about her Internet Governance and plan to run data privacy in Brazil (even though a digital iron-wall seems a little help if you keep the current architecture of Internet as it is today),; and an exit to her UN speec). > >>> and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all. If you feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately. >> >> Ah ... the "equal footing" is not in governing or in designing the internet, it is on discussing them on this list! >> Now I understand the qui pro quo. > > Designing the Internet? The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers > all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am > uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet > governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet > service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work. A bit surprise to read this. Architecture of Internet? You need help on this? Not you! Designing the Internet is clear to many, and to you as well. To keep ONE Internet has a direct impact on business and surveillance. Both are fully related to the designing of Internet. See previous emails in the lists. Again, and again, the way you answer to these emails show (and we might sound more or less the same to you) that you are reluctant to envisage a completely different setting. Going after the middle countries - the stupid ones who didn't know what to think of Internet Governance back in Dubai, is a way of thinking that sounds a bit awkward to me, specially from someone like Chehadé. Germany, Turkey… and others would be middle countries, that could easily be pushed into a pro MS asymmetric game, well, well, that is to be seen. You are underestimating the fact that the 'world' as Cheahadé put it, might already felt so down on your approach that if you do not accept to deeply change your thinking, you will be responsible for getting Internet a divided, fragmented, and untrusted world. BY the way, in my first email regarding the present conversation, I spotted at least one concrete idea. It seems again, that you were not able to pick it up. Too bad you seems to be blind to alternative. JC > > /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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 28 12:19:38 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:19:38 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent questions, Carolina. I look forward to responses. Obrigada. gp On 27 January 2014 20:52, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Marilia, > > Thank you for your email, time and focus on this. Will this committee > prepare any content for the meeting? Is there any group on the Brazil side > working on principles? Will the submissions be available in the website > after being done for consultation by other stakeholders? What will this or > other committee do with the submissions? tks > > C > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the >> meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based >> on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement >> them. >> >> >> >> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was >> cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with >> discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and >> finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the >> room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam >> reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Regarding the substantive agenda: >> >> >> >> *1. **Work Plan of EMC* >> >> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed >> that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote >> participation will be available. >> >> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to >> the website >> >> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >> >> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion >> in-between meetings and calls >> >> >> >> *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* >> >> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the >> agenda >> >> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more >> to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >> >> >> >> *3. Participation criteria* >> >> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality >> and flexibility >> >> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical >> limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, >> because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on >> the table (see the section "venue" below). But a viable figure seems to be >> between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder >> groups. >> >> - The meeting will have like a "pre-registration". Individuals will >> register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their >> institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with >> the theme. >> >> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of >> individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of "slots" >> allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people >> among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers >> will be able to attend. >> >> - If "over-registration" happens with relation to any stakeholder group, >> some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for >> selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation >> from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. >> But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if >> needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >> >> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not >> fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space >> to minimize a problem "over-registration" of another stakeholder group. >> >> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. >> Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These >> dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to >> assess the scenario). >> >> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >> >> >> >> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly >> asked and responded: >> >> >> >> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and >> contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? >> à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all >> outcomes. >> >> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The >> organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was >> informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG >> related meetings are discussing this topic. >> >> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not >> EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and >> participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will >> be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >> >> >> >> *4) Public consultation* >> >> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I >> was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed >> something >> >> >> >> - Inputs will be provided through the website >> >> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda >> item. Not yet defined) >> >> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be >> proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on >> institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >> >> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of >> inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the >> website) >> >> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in >> the website >> >> - All contributions will be treated equally >> >> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can >> others please confirm?) >> >> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy >> reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? - can others >> confirm?) >> >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on >> principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The >> drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants >> would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a >> multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. >> Further discussion is needed. >> >> >> >> *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* >> >> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split >> the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some >> other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic >> tentative schedule was drafted today. >> >> >> >> Day 1: >> >> 9:00-11:00 - Opening ceremony >> >> 11:30-13:00 - Principles >> >> 14:00-16:00 - Frameworks >> >> 16:30-18:00 - principles >> >> >> >> Day 2: >> >> 9:00 - 11:00 - Frameworks >> >> 11:30 - 13:00 - Principles >> >> 14:00 - 16:00 - panel discussion (focus tbd) >> >> 16:00 - 18:00 - conclusions/adoption/outcomes >> >> >> >> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to >> give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among >> different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some "air" to evolve. >> >> >> >> *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* >> >> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic >> was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >> >> >> >> *Venue:* >> >> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just >> become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels >> around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. >> Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is >> negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information >> on that is coming soon. >> >> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to >> the event (a "day zero"). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at >> this moment. >> >> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables >> for flyers, publications and similar. >> >> >> >> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to >> work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, >> and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the >> members. Really something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >> >> Marília >> >> -- >> *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 >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jan 28 14:17:11 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:17:11 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F @istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <50C43B92-086D-43F6-89D9-516D1C5ECC41@istaff.org> On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:05 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Le 28 janv. 2014 à 02:58, John Curran a écrit : >> Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate >> on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list. > 1net has no legitimacy at all (which one has it, apart from being funded by ICANN? Do you think that ICANN should have put a little bit more money into the IGF? Even Saint Amour back in December said the I* needed to give funding to the IGF - to calm it maybe?. Legitimacy for what purpose? 1net is a perfectly legitimate discussion forum; one suitable for working on problems and solutions, and it can be one of many such forums. The value of a solution is in the merit of its arguments, not based on number or flavor of endorsements; if you seek a forum where the solutions are evaluated based on political support or representation, I'd look elsewhere. > I would disagree with both Michel and you over the fact that there are no alternative. There are other options. At least I can see two of them. You will be informed soon enough, and the dialogue might start again, but not under a strict control and ruling by the I* and their Asymmetrics priests whether Cerf, Pisanty or any other. Excellent... I look forward to reading your proposals, when and whereever they may appear. If there is value in them, perhaps they will gain support. > But again, as I wrote in my post it is really difficult to collaborate with a group of people refusing to have common definitions, refusing to acknowledge that the game has been biased for sometime. It seems like there is no honest desire to come a neutral table for a discussion to deliver something else than what the I* and Asymmetrics are expecting. Actually, I would welcome common definitions... please suggest some either as a baseline or as part of the draft problem statement that George proposed. > A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins the last drop of trust. "Approach to diplomacy"? This posting must have been intended for some list other than the discuss at 1net.org list, as this discuss list is about working on problems and solutions, not negotiation, posturing, or diplomacy. >>> Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use. >> >> Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can >> be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as >> they are developed. > > As soon as we enter your 'game', you get your smile back! Interesting. In Michel suggestion, I do understand that he does not understand clearly what is 1net about? A problem for anyone to feel confident to enter that arena. BUt if we accept and say : "Let's go and seat on an equal footing basis to a 1net table…" then we might see how ready and open you are to find a new IG model. Haven't you the impression that we have seen enough sterile thinking from the Asymmetrics. Think of Pisanty and his radicalism. He is at war, and you understand it, right? 1net is another fluffy bizzarerie, among many others the Asymmetrics have invented to keep the imbalance in place. If you believe such, then feel free not to participate and/or work in another forum (and if you send me an invite, I might even join in that discussion if I can meaningfully contribute) >> Designing the Internet? The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers >> all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am >> uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet >> governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet >> service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work. > A bit surprise to read this. Architecture of Internet? You need help on this? Not you! Designing the Internet is clear to many, and to you as well. To keep ONE Internet has a direct impact on business and surveillance. Both are fully related to the designing of Internet. See previous emails in the lists. > > Again, and again, the way you answer to these emails show (and we might sound more or less the same to you) that you are reluctant to envisage a completely different setting. Going after the middle countries - the stupid ones who didn't know what to think of Internet Governance back in Dubai, is a way of thinking that sounds a bit awkward to me, specially from someone like Chehadé. Germany, Turkey… and others would be middle countries, that could easily be pushed into a pro MS asymmetric game, well, well, that is to be seen. If that is your desire, then go forth. I actually have no desire to "push" anyone (particularly not countries) into any particularly direction. I (and many others on this list) _do_ want to try to further explore some of the current challenges in Internet governance. > BY the way, in my first email regarding the present conversation, I spotted at least one concrete idea. It seems again, that you were not able to pick it up. Too bad you seems to be blind to alternative. Wonderful. Perhaps once we have a problem statement, you would be so kind as to restate your proposed solution/alternative and the reasoning supporting it? Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Jan 28 16:34:25 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:34:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carol, thanks! Please see some comments below: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Will this committee prepare any content for the meeting? --> You mean > inputs? The group discussed that a synthesis of all contributions should be > produced. I need others to confirm, but I think it should be produced by > the Secretariat. It was also mentioned, but not decided, that it would be > useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were > produced before the event, serving as a starting point to help discussions. > But, as I said, we did not discuss it further. The website says that EMC is > responsible for the treatment of the proposals from participants. > > Is there any group on the Brazil side working on principles? --> I don't > know. I am only aware of what Mathew and others are working on. Adam made a > suggestion during the meeting to ask assistance from third parties (mostly > organizations that produced the principles) to produce a synthesis > document. Maybe he can explain it better. > Will the submissions be available in the website after being done for > consultation by other stakeholders? --> Yes > > What will this or other committee do with the submissions? --> Please see > the answer to the first question. > Hugs M > > C > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the >> meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based >> on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement >> them. >> >> >> >> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was >> cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with >> discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and >> finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the >> room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam >> reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Regarding the substantive agenda: >> >> >> >> *1. **Work Plan of EMC* >> >> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed >> that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote >> participation will be available. >> >> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to >> the website >> >> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >> >> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion >> in-between meetings and calls >> >> >> >> *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* >> >> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the >> agenda >> >> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more >> to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >> >> >> >> *3. Participation criteria* >> >> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality >> and flexibility >> >> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical >> limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, >> because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on >> the table (see the section "venue" below). But a viable figure seems to be >> between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder >> groups. >> >> - The meeting will have like a "pre-registration". Individuals will >> register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their >> institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with >> the theme. >> >> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of >> individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of "slots" >> allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people >> among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers >> will be able to attend. >> >> - If "over-registration" happens with relation to any stakeholder group, >> some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for >> selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation >> from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. >> But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if >> needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >> >> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not >> fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space >> to minimize a problem "over-registration" of another stakeholder group. >> >> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. >> Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These >> dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to >> assess the scenario). >> >> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >> >> >> >> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly >> asked and responded: >> >> >> >> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and >> contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? >> à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all >> outcomes. >> >> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The >> organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was >> informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG >> related meetings are discussing this topic. >> >> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not >> EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and >> participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will >> be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >> >> >> >> *4) Public consultation* >> >> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I >> was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed >> something >> >> >> >> - Inputs will be provided through the website >> >> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda >> item. Not yet defined) >> >> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be >> proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on >> institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >> >> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of >> inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the >> website) >> >> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in >> the website >> >> - All contributions will be treated equally >> >> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can >> others please confirm?) >> >> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy >> reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? - can others >> confirm?) >> >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on >> principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The >> drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants >> would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a >> multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. >> Further discussion is needed. >> >> >> >> *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* >> >> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split >> the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some >> other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic >> tentative schedule was drafted today. >> >> >> >> Day 1: >> >> 9:00-11:00 - Opening ceremony >> >> 11:30-13:00 - Principles >> >> 14:00-16:00 - Frameworks >> >> 16:30-18:00 - principles >> >> >> >> Day 2: >> >> 9:00 - 11:00 - Frameworks >> >> 11:30 - 13:00 - Principles >> >> 14:00 - 16:00 - panel discussion (focus tbd) >> >> 16:00 - 18:00 - conclusions/adoption/outcomes >> >> >> >> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to >> give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among >> different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some "air" to evolve. >> >> >> >> *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* >> >> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic >> was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >> >> >> >> *Venue:* >> >> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just >> become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels >> around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. >> Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is >> negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information >> on that is coming soon. >> >> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to >> the event (a "day zero"). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at >> this moment. >> >> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables >> for flyers, publications and similar. >> >> >> >> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to >> work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, >> and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the >> members. Really something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >> >> Marília >> >> -- >> *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 >> > > > > -- > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 19:28:25 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:28:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Marilia and happy 2014. hugs De On 27 January 2014 22:29, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the > meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based > on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement > them. > > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was > cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with > discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and > finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the > room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam > reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > > *1. **Work Plan of EMC* > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that > each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote > participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to > the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion > in-between meetings and calls > > > > *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the > agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more > to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > > *3. Participation criteria* > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and > flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical > limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, > because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on > the table (see the section "venue" below). But a viable figure seems to be > between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder > groups. > > - The meeting will have like a "pre-registration". Individuals will > register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their > institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with > the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of > individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of "slots" > allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people > among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers > will be able to attend. > > - If "over-registration" happens with relation to any stakeholder group, > some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for > selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation > from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. > But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if > needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not > fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space > to minimize a problem "over-registration" of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. > Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These > dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to > assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly > asked and responded: > > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? àYes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The > organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was > informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG > related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not > EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and > participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will > be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > > *4) Public consultation* > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was > helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed > something > > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. > Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be > proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on > institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of > inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the > website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in > the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can > others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy > reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? - can others > confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on > principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The > drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants > would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a > multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. > Further discussion is needed. > > > > *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split > the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some > other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative > schedule was drafted today. > > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 - Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 - Principles > > 14:00-16:00 - Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 - principles > > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 - 11:00 - Frameworks > > 11:30 - 13:00 - Principles > > 14:00 - 16:00 - panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 - 18:00 - conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to > give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among > different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some "air" to evolve. > > > > *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was > the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > > *Venue:* > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just > become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels > around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. > Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is > negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information > on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to > the event (a "day zero"). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at > this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables > for flyers, publications and similar. > > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work > harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and > actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. > Really something to be improved. > > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > -- > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 19:35:25 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:35:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And thank you Adam :-) On 28 January 2014 05:54, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to > cone-elist at net-equality.org, please forward) > > On the two topics: > > "internet governance principles" > > Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that > we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of > universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do > this, but no clear agreement. > > "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" > > Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics > might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the > topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input > would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, > they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to > introduce the bestbits work on this. > > Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should > we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) > > BTW, I suspect the new website pages on content > were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. > Suggest everyone ignore for now. > > Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the > conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) > > About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, > but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. > Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and > as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of > different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having > our meeting. > > Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. > Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of > the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. > Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) > for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can > remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the > impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty > experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be > imaginative/helpful in arrangements. > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the > meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based > on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement > them. > > > > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was > cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with > discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and > finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the > room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam > reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > > > > 1. Work Plan of EMC > > > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed > that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote > participation will be available. > > > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to > the website > > > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion > in-between meetings and calls > > > > > > 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the > agenda > > > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more > to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > > > > 3. Participation criteria > > > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality > and flexibility > > > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical > limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, > because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on > the table (see the section "venue" below). But a viable figure seems to be > between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder > groups. > > > > - The meeting will have like a "pre-registration". Individuals will > register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their > institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with > the theme. > > > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of > individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of "slots" > allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people > among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers > will be able to attend. > > > > - If "over-registration" happens with relation to any stakeholder group, > some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for > selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation > from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. > But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if > needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not > fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space > to minimize a problem "over-registration" of another stakeholder group. > > > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. > Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These > dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to > assess the scenario). > > > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly > asked and responded: > > > > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à > Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The > organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was > informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG > related meetings are discussing this topic. > > > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not > EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and > participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will > be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > > > > 4) Public consultation > > > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I > was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed > something > > > > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda > item. Not yet defined) > > > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be > proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on > institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of > inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the > website) > > > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation > in the website > > > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can > others please confirm?) > > > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy > reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? - can others > confirm?) > > > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on > principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The > drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants > would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a > multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. > Further discussion is needed. > > > > > > > > 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda > > > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to > split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There > some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic > tentative schedule was drafted today. > > > > > > Day 1: > > > > 9:00-11:00 - Opening ceremony > > > > 11:30-13:00 - Principles > > > > 14:00-16:00 - Frameworks > > > > 16:30-18:00 - principles > > > > > > Day 2: > > > > 9:00 - 11:00 - Frameworks > > > > 11:30 - 13:00 - Principles > > > > 14:00 - 16:00 - panel discussion (focus tbd) > > > > 16:00 - 18:00 - conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order > to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among > different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some "air" to evolve. > > > > > > 6. Wrap-up, Next steps > > > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic > was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > > > > Venue: > > > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just > become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels > around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. > Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is > negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information > on that is coming soon. > > > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous > to the event (a "day zero"). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at > this moment. > > > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables > for flyers, publications and similar. > > > > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to > work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, > and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the > members. Really something to be improved. > > > > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > > > Marília > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jan 28 23:39:43 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:39:43 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140129023259.DF2D621369C@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F @istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> <50C43B92-086D-43F6-89D9-516D1C5ECC41@istaff.org> <20140129023259.DF2D621369C@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <2F26C8FD-5531-4AD5-80D5-83E5A855F610@istaff.org> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > At 20:17 28/01/2014, John Curran wrote: >> Legitimacy for what purpose? 1net is a perfectly legitimate discussion forum; >> one suitable for working on problems and solutions, and it can be one of many >> such forums. > > A discussion forum does not usually organizes ministerial level meetings. Agreed - my description above was with respect to "1net" and its legitimacy as a discussion forum; I was not referring to any other role. >> The value of a solution is in the merit of its arguments, not based on number or >> flavor of endorsements; > > Wrong. RFC 6852 what counts is the acceptation by the market. Actually, 1net should determine its own standard for determination of a good solution, but it you if want that to be RFC 6852, then so be it: Per RFC 6852: "...Standards that: • are chosen and defined based on technical merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant;" (i.e. very similar to the "merit" criteria I stated above) > John, this is something difficult. However sympathetic you may be: you are the problem. People use it because there is no other possibility but they have lost trust in you (11 CEOs) and in your technology. I know: you have not endorsed OpenStand. There is most probably a good reason for that: you do not trust it either? For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of principles and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not endorsing" does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means that they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration at this time. >> If you believe such, then feel free not to participate and/or work in another forum (and if >> you send me an invite, I might even join in that discussion if I can meaningfully contribute) > > This "list" has hijacked the preparation of Sao Paulo. It seems normal that it reflects the debate that its members wanted and will most probably not get there by lack of time. At least the meeting conclusion should reflect everyone position, on an equal footing basis. Is that still correct? No idea; you should ask such questions to the Sao Paulo meeting organizers. >> If that is your desire, then go forth. I actually have no desire to "push" anyone (particularly >> not countries) into any particularly direction. I (and many others on this list) _do_ want to >> try to further explore some of the current challenges in Internet governance. > > What is strange enough is your lack of consideration of Internet technical changes that could affect what is to be governed. A substantial part of the informed people in the world want the IG to change as a consequence of a preliminary technological improvement. > > What do you respond to people saying you: "we do not trust you, we do not trust your machines, we do not trust your proposition we do not understand"? I would ask for more explanation, since "we do not trust your proposition we do not understand" doesn't really let me understand either. >> Wonderful. Perhaps once we have a problem statement, you would be so kind as to restate >> your proposed solution/alternative and the reasoning supporting it? > > I feel that (if I look at the number and the origin of the mails) the problem is the decrease of interest in something unable to document what it is, where it comes from, what it targets and to commit? Sorry, I was trying to bit more specific, and asking that folks assist in the problem definition and solution development that George Sadowsky has started on this list. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 29 01:27:10 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:27:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416B8453-982D-4BD7-8E14-D0682C58B020@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Carol, thanks! Please see some comments below: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Will this committee prepare any content for the meeting? --> You mean inputs? The group discussed that a synthesis of all contributions should be produced. I need others to confirm, but I think it should be produced by the Secretariat. It was also mentioned, but not decided, that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event, serving as a starting point to help discussions. But, as I said, we did not discuss it further. The website says that EMC is responsible for the treatment of the proposals from participants. > > Is there any group on the Brazil side working on principles? --> I don't know. I am only aware of what Mathew and others are working on. Adam made a suggestion during the meeting to ask assistance from third parties (mostly organizations that produced the principles) to produce a synthesis document. Maybe he can explain it better. > Mentioned during the meeting on Monday, but still to be discussed in detail by the exec committee. For principles I suggested a dual approach. Work's been done by many stakeholders, bringing in many perspectives, there seem to be about 25 such statements. Jeremy's made a list of most, and we should add to that (see below). Suggested (1) There should be an open consultation. Comments to be based around the existing proposals, perhaps ask people to comment on the various principles statements and identify those that should be in a universal statement. See if consensus around some aspects emerges. If new principles are proposed, fine, but don't actively seek more. (2) Invite the authors (organizations) of the statements to work together in drafting a set of universal principles. See what consensus they can reach. A session on multistakeholder principles at the Bali IGF (see chair's paper ) brought together a few of the groups and they said yes when asked if they'd work together to develop a coherent set. So looks like this approach possible. Jeremy's list: Add President Rousseff's speech to the UN GA Necessary and proportionate and Carl Bildt's Seoul speech (both spoken of favorably in Bali.) Community informatics statement Marco Civil should be consider if it passes and if Brazil wants it there. What's missing from above? (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org, no archive I can see, so not cc'd Please forward if useful.) Adam > Will the submissions be available in the website after being done for consultation by other stakeholders? --> Yes > > What will this or other committee do with the submissions? --> Please see the answer to the first question. > > Hugs > M > > C > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > 1. Work Plan of EMC > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls > > > 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > 3. Participation criteria > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. > > - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. > > - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > 4) Public consultation > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. > > > > 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 – Principles > > 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 – principles > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks > > 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles > > 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. > > > 6. Wrap-up, Next steps > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > Venue: > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > > -- > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 29 01:32:51 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:32:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting Message-ID: Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Jan 29 01:58:04 2014 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:58:04 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, which is being held on 19-20 February. The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are "indifferent to their stakeholders". Paul. On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? > > The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. > > Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. > > The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 05:17:37 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:17:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> Hi I just checked with Chengetai. Paul’s explanation is correct and the website will be updated. BTW, what the IGF website doesn’t show is that the host government has expressed a desire to move the meeting forward to 19-22 August. Sticking it during high vacation season in the Northern hemisphere would not be good for turn-out, which in turn would not be good for the UN renewal debate when the usual long knives may be out. It also would be a real problem for the preparatory process, and apparently for national/regional IGFs. Markus has sent a letter to DESA on behalf of concerned MAG members asking that the UN reaffirm to the host its preference for the original deal. Best Bill On Jan 29, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, which is being held on 19-20 February. > > The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. > > Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are "indifferent to their stakeholders". > > Paul. > > > > > On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? >> >> The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. >> >> Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. >> >> The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 *********************************************** 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jan 29 10:56:36 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:56:36 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 29 11:11:46 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:11:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] Open Cosultations February In-Reply-To: <651390754570@web18h.yandex.ru> References: <651390754570@web18h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: Dear Andrey, All, The online registration for the Open Consultations and MAG meetings is now open. Please see Chengetai's email below. Best Regards, Fatima Dear All, The online registration for the for the 19-20 February Open Consultations and MAG meetings is now open (and will close on 15 February). http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/february-open-consultations As was discussed in December during the MAG virtual meeting the open consultations and MAG meeting will be combined and open. Best regards, Chengetai 2014-01-26 Shcherbovich Andrey > Dear colleagues! > > Do you know when the registration for the Open Consultations and MAG > meeting will be opened? > > Thank you! > > With kind regards, > Andrey Shcherbovich > HSE > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Wed Jan 29 11:48:30 2014 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:48:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] Open Cosultations February In-Reply-To: References: <651390754570@web18h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <168241391014110@web10m.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 29 12:11:04 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:11:04 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> Message-ID: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 29 12:19:46 2014 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:19:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> If I am correct, the upcoming IGF is in Turkey, I think the political situation might stay a bit volatile and the IGF may actually face some delays unfortunately if unrest erupts again. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I just checked with Chengetai. Paul’s explanation is correct and the website will be updated. > > BTW, what the IGF website doesn’t show is that the host government has expressed a desire to move the meeting forward to 19-22 August. Sticking it during high vacation season in the Northern hemisphere would not be good for turn-out, which in turn would not be good for the UN renewal debate when the usual long knives may be out. It also would be a real problem for the preparatory process, and apparently for national/regional IGFs. Markus has sent a letter to DESA on behalf of concerned MAG members asking that the UN reaffirm to the host its preference for the original deal. > > Best > > Bill > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, which is being held on 19-20 February. >> >> The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. >> >> Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are "indifferent to their stakeholders". >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >> >> On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? >>> >>> The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. >>> >>> Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. >>> >>> The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jan 29 12:57:04 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:57:04 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <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> Message-ID: <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B@istaff.org> On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:11 PM, JCN Global wrote: > 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. > > ;-) Excellent (and I by no means intended to "ambush" you; I was simply trying to understand your proposal and reasoning) > It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. I have no difficulty with the word legitimacy, but I do believe that any group of folks can collectively work on problems with "legitimacy" - that is inherent to rights of free movement and association. Concerns about "legitimacy" of any voluntary and open discussion is misplaced, as the outcomes themselves are ideas to be freely picked up (or not) and used (or not) via voluntarily mechanisms. To my knowledge, any proposed solutions developed by 1net are no more binding on anyone than solutions from Best Bits, IGF, or or any topical seminar. Now, if you are talking about parties who intend to make mandatary choices on behalf of others, then the use of words like legitimacy, representation and equity become particularly important (but such binding outcomes do not align with my understanding of 1net's role; they might be part of your "supreme international body, no?) > 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. EU Directive 95/46/EC is directive which specifies a now widely accepted norm. > 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. Correct; hence my request to you regarding scope and mode of your postulated "supreme international body" > 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. It would be nice to see something perhaps more detailed, and in particular how the values being set would intersect (or not) existing institutions. I do not believe you addressed that question in your response, but will await your ongoing refinement of the idea and can discuss when it is ready. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jan 29 13:30:12 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:30:12 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <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> Message-ID: At 18:11 29/01/2014, JCN Global wrote: >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. JC, Multinet does exist. It was initally (1968/1985) Tymnet before it was strangled by the Asymetrics. It now is the internet if it is not strangled again by the same ones. The practical strength of the Internet over Tymnet is the datagram concept which makes strangulation quite impossible. The disadvantage is the lack of layer six and interpresentation system. This why enacting MS-IG starts with working on a fully distributed (at personal level) globalization of the root servers system. One easily understand that fragmentation becomes quite difficult when there is no rigisity left to fragment. Unfortunately this may make ICE (the FBI world control on the DNS, more difficult). This hardware level IANA globalization does not change the role of ICANN which still has the same mission: manage the class "IN" (ICANN/NTIA) root data. This is therefore totally conform to the Montevideo target. It also match the primary purpose of ICANN, to foster competition in the naming area, as other class root data public, private, or free providers might compete with ICANN. There should however be a need for a root data administrator enhanced cooperation to establish ethic rules, foster R&D, propose warranties to registrants, interface individual domain name owner organizations, discuss with States the IPR issues, and obviously discuss the way to mutually support the multiple identification usages and semantics of the multiples technologies. This is just an example of the potentialities that a real, non status-quo hampered, MS-IG permits to project. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 14:10:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:10:35 -0800 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B@istaff.org> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <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> <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B @istaff.org> Message-ID: <07d601cf1d25$cabad0f0$603072d0$@gmail.com> John, I would refer you to the (updated?) Brazil meeting website... http://netmundial.br/ where apparently the "hosting" of the meeting has devolved to "a partnership between CGI.br and /1net". What this, combined with your words concerning the (relative lack of substantive) significance of 1net, suggests to me is that in your perception the Brazil meeting seems now to have become nothing more than a "topical seminar" of no more significance than a passing debate on the BB or Governance e-list or a rather compressed and unanchored version of the IGF. Is this correct? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:57 AM To: JCN Global Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC; Best Bits; 1Net List Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:11 PM, JCN Global wrote: > 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. > > ;-) Excellent (and I by no means intended to "ambush" you; I was simply trying to understand your proposal and reasoning) > It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. I have no difficulty with the word legitimacy, but I do believe that any group of folks can collectively work on problems with "legitimacy" - that is inherent to rights of free movement and association. Concerns about "legitimacy" of any voluntary and open discussion is misplaced, as the outcomes themselves are ideas to be freely picked up (or not) and used (or not) via voluntarily mechanisms. To my knowledge, any proposed solutions developed by 1net are no more binding on anyone than solutions from Best Bits, IGF, or or any topical seminar. Now, if you are talking about parties who intend to make mandatary choices on behalf of others, then the use of words like legitimacy, representation and equity become particularly important (but such binding outcomes do not align with my understanding of 1net's role; they might be part of your "supreme international body, no?) > 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. EU Directive 95/46/EC is directive which specifies a now widely accepted norm. > 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. Correct; hence my request to you regarding scope and mode of your postulated "supreme international body" > 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. It would be nice to see something perhaps more detailed, and in particular how the values being set would intersect (or not) existing institutions. I do not believe you addressed that question in your response, but will await your ongoing refinement of the idea and can discuss when it is ready. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jan 29 14:34:17 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:34:17 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <07d601cf1d25$cabad0f0$603072d0$@gmail.com> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <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> <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B @istaff.org> <07d601cf1d25$cabad0f0$603072d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6444FF2B-604B-4C27-BC2C-D7E0C706B0DD@istaff.org> On Jan 29, 2014, at 2:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > John, > ... > What this, combined with your words concerning the (relative lack of > substantive) significance of 1net, suggests to me is that in your perception > the Brazil meeting seems now to have become nothing more than a "topical > seminar" of no more significance than a passing debate on the BB or > Governance e-list or a rather compressed and unanchored version of the IGF. > > Is this correct? No. As stated before, I have no view of the Brazil meeting; I was referring solely to the role of 1net as a discussion forum, which is equivalent to any other topical seminar in terms of its legitimacy in that role. Thanks, /John Disclaimer: My views alone -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 29 17:31:00 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:31:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Before we are too hard on Turkey they should be commended on accepting refugees from Syria: - 199, 658 being Camp population count in June 2013 - 182,049 being non Camp population in June 2013 Total Syrian Refugee Count as at June 2013 globally is 1,658,177 Source: US State Department, US Agency for International Development, UNOCHA, UNHCR Aside from the Protest that took place in May 2013 in Turkey, this should not dampen the possibility of having an IGF there unless otherwise indicated by the host. When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands of displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family member and destruction to their communities, for some reason it just seems trivial especially if what is being debated and objected to is "vacation time". I mean like "seriously" "what the funny?" On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > If I am correct, the upcoming IGF is in Turkey, I think the political > situation might stay a bit volatile and the IGF may actually face some > delays unfortunately if unrest erupts again. > > Best Regards > Fouad Bajwa > > Sent from my mobile device > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I just checked with Chengetai. Paul's explanation is correct and the > website will be updated. > > > > BTW, what the IGF website doesn't show is that the host government has > expressed a desire to move the meeting forward to 19-22 August. Sticking > it during high vacation season in the Northern hemisphere would not be good > for turn-out, which in turn would not be good for the UN renewal debate > when the usual long knives may be out. It also would be a real problem for > the preparatory process, and apparently for national/regional IGFs. Markus > has sent a letter to DESA on behalf of concerned MAG members asking that > the UN reaffirm to the host its preference for the original deal. > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > >> My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, > which is being held on 19-20 February. > >> > >> The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has > been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. > >> > >> Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope > that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are > "indifferent to their stakeholders". > >> > >> Paul. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >>> Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. > The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that > correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG > meeting? > >>> > >>> The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little > consideration given to the "consultation" part. > >>> > >>> Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives < > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/> -- > suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be > discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is > for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's > there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the > IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG > members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on > the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the > linkages they bring to their communities. > >>> > >>> The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform > us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > *********************************************** > > 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 > > *********************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jan 29 18:38:23 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:38:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) In-Reply-To: References: <20140126093010.4871eb0c@quill> Message-ID: At 14:54 26/01/2014, Richard Hill wrote: >I will be pleased to co-sign it. If not too late, you can add me on behalf of INTLNET, http://intlnet.org, JFC Morfin, Executive Director. jfc >Best, >Richard > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > > Sent: dimanche, 26. janvier 2014 09:30 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Richard Hill > > Cc: Daniel IGA MWESIGWA; Birgitta Jónsdóttir > > Subject: Re: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil > > MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) > > > > > > Many thanks to Richard for his comments on the questions that I had > > raised. > > > > I've added two notes at the end which are inspired by Richard's > > response (see below). > > > > I had hoped that there would be significant discussion, and on the > > basis of that, a consensus process on this submission. It is not a > > problem from my perspective however to provide this input as an > > individual submission. Alternatively, if someone is interested in > > co-signing this, please let me know by tonight 23.00 UTC. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Submission on substantive discourse processes > > > > This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes > > for handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder > > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > > > > According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will "focus > > on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for > > the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” > > > > Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it > > may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering > > requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles > > and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from > > various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the > > various perspectives on this are. > > > > If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling > > substantive inputs could include the following: > > > > * Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input > > documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various > > perspectives. > > > > * Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive > > inputs into a comprehensive report. > > > > * After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive > > contributions. The working group will draft a report on > > requirements and concerns, noting which points require further > > clarification. > > > > * Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that > > their contribution is reflected appropriately. > > > > * Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have > > submitted are processed. > > > > * The working group for the substantive report tries to identify > > what are the open points that need to be resolved before the report > > can be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the > > various perspectives on this are. > > > > * At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of "open points that > > need to be resolved" can be added to by any participant. > > > > * The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions > > attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open > > points. > > > > * The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution > > proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved. > > > > Notes: > > > > 1. In terms of style requirements on the submissions, a necessary > > and maybe sufficient rule is that ad hominem attacks, insults, etc. > > must not be allowed. > > > > 2. The fundamental model for developing the output document would be > > the "single text" approach: there is one document, and anybody is > > free to propose changes to it. The changes are discussed and agreed > > or not. The starting point for this process is an empty document. > > > > > > Respectfully submitted > > with all the best wishes > > > > Norbert Bollow, Swiss Open Systems User Group > > > > > > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 20:53:21 2014 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:53:21 -0200 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <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> Message-ID: 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 > 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 > 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 * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 29 21:10:17 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:40:17 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <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> Message-ID: <464DC97F-6264-4A44-BD26-AF9FAD767896@hserus.net> The ORSN faded because of 1. A widespread lack of enthusiasm against replacing a known to work solution with something rather more poorly managed 2. The fact that "US dominance of root servers" is and has been for years a nonsensical canard. I doubt that there is any nation in the world that doesn't have an instance of at least one if not more of the root servers within its territory. --srs (iPad) > On 30-Jan-2014, at 7:23, Hindenburgo Pires wrote: > > 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 >> 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 00:27:55 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:57:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> Thanks to Marilia and Adam for their report... A small question -- there is framing text on the meeting website seeking inputs on the IG roadmap and Internet principles... Any idea who drafted/ wrote that text. http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/principles Thanks parminder On Tuesday 28 January 2014 03:24 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org, please forward) > > On the two topics: > > "internet governance principles" > > Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. > > "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" > > Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. > > Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) > > BTW, I suspect the new website pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. > > Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) > > About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. > > Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. >> >> >> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >> >> >> Regarding the substantive agenda: >> >> >> 1. Work Plan of EMC >> >> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. >> >> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website >> >> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >> >> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls >> >> >> 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) >> >> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda >> >> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >> >> >> 3. Participation criteria >> >> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility >> >> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. >> >> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. >> >> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. >> >> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >> >> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. >> >> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). >> >> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >> >> >> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: >> >> >> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. >> >> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. >> >> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >> >> >> 4) Public consultation >> >> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something >> >> >> - Inputs will be provided through the website >> >> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) >> >> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >> >> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) >> >> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website >> >> - All contributions will be treated equally >> >> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) >> >> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) >> >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. >> >> >> >> 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda >> >> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. >> >> >> Day 1: >> >> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony >> >> 11:30-13:00 – Principles >> >> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks >> >> 16:30-18:00 – principles >> >> >> Day 2: >> >> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks >> >> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles >> >> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) >> >> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes >> >> >> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. >> >> >> 6. Wrap-up, Next steps >> >> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >> >> >> Venue: >> >> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. >> >> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. >> >> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. >> >> >> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. >> >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >> >> Marília >> >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jan 30 01:24:52 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:24:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> References: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:27 PM, parminder wrote: > Thanks to Marilia and Adam for their report... > > A small question -- there is framing text on the meeting website seeking inputs on the IG roadmap and Internet principles... Any idea who drafted/ wrote that text. > > http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/principles > The exec committee. We might try to provide more detail, something we need to discuss. Adam > Thanks > > parminder > > On Tuesday 28 January 2014 03:24 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org >> , please forward) >> >> On the two topics: >> >> "internet governance principles" >> >> Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. >> >> "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" >> >> Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. >> >> Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) >> >> BTW, I suspect the new website >> >> pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. >> >> Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) >> >> About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. >> >> Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. >>> >>> >>> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >>> >>> >>> Regarding the substantive agenda: >>> >>> >>> 1. Work Plan of EMC >>> >>> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. >>> >>> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website >>> >>> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >>> >>> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls >>> >>> >>> 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) >>> >>> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda >>> >>> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >>> >>> >>> 3. Participation criteria >>> >>> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility >>> >>> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. >>> >>> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. >>> >>> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. >>> >>> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >>> >>> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. >>> >>> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). >>> >>> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >>> >>> >>> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: >>> >>> >>> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. >>> >>> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. >>> >>> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >>> >>> >>> 4) Public consultation >>> >>> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something >>> >>> >>> - Inputs will be provided through the website >>> >>> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) >>> >>> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >>> >>> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) >>> >>> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website >>> >>> - All contributions will be treated equally >>> >>> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) >>> >>> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) >>> >>> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda >>> >>> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. >>> >>> >>> Day 1: >>> >>> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony >>> >>> 11:30-13:00 – Principles >>> >>> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks >>> >>> 16:30-18:00 – principles >>> >>> >>> Day 2: >>> >>> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks >>> >>> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles >>> >>> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) >>> >>> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes >>> >>> >>> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. >>> >>> >>> 6. Wrap-up, Next steps >>> >>> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >>> >>> >>> Venue: >>> >>> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. >>> >>> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. >>> >>> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. >>> >>> >>> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. >>> >>> >>> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 03:57:54 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:57:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IRPCoalition] Fwd: [ExeCom] EMC meeting report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI and FYR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matthias C. Kettemann Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:03 AM Subject: [IRPCoalition] Fwd: [ExeCom] EMC meeting report To: Discussion list for GigaNet Members , "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> Dear friends, please find attached the executive report from the Executive Committee. With executive greetings Matthias ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Fink Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:49 PM Subject: [ExeCom] EMC meeting report To: execom at nic.br, daniel at netmundial.br Dear EMC members Following instructions from Chairs Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko, I am sending the executive report from the 1st EMC meeting. Best regards, Daniel Fink Executive Director, NETmundial Secretariat www.netmundial.org daniel at netmundial.br _______________________________________________ Execom mailing list Execom at nic.br https://mail.nic.br/mailman/listinfo/execom -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence "Normative Orders ", University of Frankfurt/Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, University of Graz Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | my new book | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014) Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, ed.) Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, ed.) The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-edited) _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EMC 1st meeting Jan 27_Executive report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 611826 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Thu Jan 30 04:43:24 2014 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:43:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> - Best Bits (double-posting) +1 to these sentiments. No country is perfect. On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:31, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands of displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family member and destruction to their communities, for some reason it just seems trivial especially if what is being debated and objected to is "vacation time". > > I mean like "seriously" "what the funny?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 08:31:08 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:31:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Hi Nobody is debating whether any country is perfect, the Syrian refugee crisis, or anything similar (?). There is a discussion in the MAG about the scheduling of the IGF meeting, and the possible consequences for the IGF in terms of attendance, political support, costs to participants, the planning process, etc. of it being unilaterally changed to mid-August. If anyone is interested, the discussion is on the open MAG list, http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ Best, Bill On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > - Best Bits (double-posting) > > +1 to these sentiments. No country is perfect. > > > On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:31, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands of displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family member and destruction to their communities, for some reason it just seems trivial especially if what is being debated and objected to is "vacation time". >> >> I mean like "seriously" "what the funny?" > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 08:50:13 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:50:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> I understand that but find it trivial when agenda has to suit northern hemisphere vacation times when we live in a globe where vacation times are diverse. That was the point I was highlighting. Best Wishes, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:31 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Nobody is debating whether any country is perfect, the Syrian refugee crisis, or anything similar (?). There is a discussion in the MAG about the scheduling of the IGF meeting, and the possible consequences for the IGF in terms of attendance, political support, costs to participants, the planning process, etc. of it being unilaterally changed to mid-August. If anyone is interested, the discussion is on the open MAG list, http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ > > Best, > > Bill > > >> On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> - Best Bits (double-posting) >> >> +1 to these sentiments. No country is perfect. >> >> >>> On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:31, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands of displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family member and destruction to their communities, for some reason it just seems trivial especially if what is being debated and objected to is "vacation time". >>> >>> I mean like "seriously" "what the funny?" >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 30 09:05:51 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:05:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change (was: February 19-20...) In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> William Drake wrote: > There is a discussion in the MAG > about the scheduling of the IGF meeting, and the possible > consequences for the IGF in terms of attendance, political support, > costs to participants, the planning process, etc. of it being > unilaterally changed to mid-August. If anyone is interested, the > discussion is on the open MAG list, > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ One aspect that apparently hasn't been brought up in that discussion is that some folks who have tight budgets will have booked airtickets soon after the Jan 10 UN press release that mentioned “the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, which will be held in Istanbul, Turkey, from 2 to 5 September.” http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2014/pi2078.doc.htm The reason for booking as early as possible after city and dates have been announced with apparent definitiveness is of course that this avoids the risk of rising ticket prices closer to the event. Maybe one of the civil society MAG members could ask the host country whether if indeed the dates are moved for the reason that that allows them to save a little money, would they in that case be willing to reimburse those who because of that will have plane tickets that they will have no use for. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 09:16:13 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:16:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: For those who may not have the time to go through the link and thread on change in dates for the IGF. Many thanks Bill for providing the link and allowing us to read and follow the discussions. I must say that Fiona Alexander and Olga Cavalli showed sensitivity and wisdom in engaging in an inquiry with the host country. Whilst Markus made an assessment an interpretation that the change of dates was diplomatic speak for finding a lower cost option, I found that other MAG members were agreeing without engaging in an inquiry. I like how Fiona raised that the "vacation time" is not a legitimate reason to justify a shift in times. I would respond to Mark (UK Govt) who raised the issue of vacation time interfering with leaders being on vacation is that we live in a global world. If leaders feel that it is a priority event, then they will rearrange their schedules to attend. Patrick mentioned that the MAG should start looking for other countries since Turkey has backtracked on the time issue etc to which he was reminded by Markus that the MAG does not have the remit to do that. It appears that they are trying to negotiate the times. Perhaps one way the IGF Secretariat can deal with the change in dates issue is where IGF venues are picked for the next 3 years giving countries time to raise funds, allocate resources and prepare in advance. The other option is to have an IGF once every two years and allow the local, nation, regional IGF processes to feed into the IGF instead of just having it annually for the sake of having it annually. Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:31 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Nobody is debating whether any country is perfect, the Syrian refugee crisis, or anything similar (?). There is a discussion in the MAG about the scheduling of the IGF meeting, and the possible consequences for the IGF in terms of attendance, political support, costs to participants, the planning process, etc. of it being unilaterally changed to mid-August. If anyone is interested, the discussion is on the open MAG list, http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ > > Best, > > Bill > > >> On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> - Best Bits (double-posting) >> >> +1 to these sentiments. No country is perfect. >> >> >>> On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:31, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands of displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family member and destruction to their communities, for some reason it just seems trivial especially if what is being debated and objected to is "vacation time". >>> >>> I mean like "seriously" "what the funny?" >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 09:22:43 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:22:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change (was: February 19-20...) In-Reply-To: <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> Message-ID: <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 30, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > William Drake wrote: > >> There is a discussion in the MAG >> about the scheduling of the IGF meeting, and the possible >> consequences for the IGF in terms of attendance, political support, >> costs to participants, the planning process, etc. of it being >> unilaterally changed to mid-August. If anyone is interested, the >> discussion is on the open MAG list, >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ > > One aspect that apparently hasn't been brought up in that discussion is > that some folks who have tight budgets will have booked airtickets soon > after the Jan 10 UN press release that mentioned “the next meeting > of the Internet Governance Forum, which will be held in Istanbul, > Turkey, from 2 to 5 September.” > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2014/pi2078.doc.htm > > The reason for booking as early as possible after city and dates have > been announced with apparent definitiveness is of course that this > avoids the risk of rising ticket prices closer to the event. > I doubt anyone would buy a fixed ticket 9 months in advance. Not after last year. Not before the organization of the meeting's even started. Can we talk about real issues. Adam > Maybe one of the civil society MAG members could ask the host country > whether if indeed the dates are moved for the reason that that allows > them to save a little money, would they in that case be willing to > reimburse those who because of that will have plane tickets that they > will have no use for. > > 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Jan 30 09:27:58 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:27:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140130142752.GA24669@tarvainen.info> On Jan 31 01:50, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) wrote: > I understand that but find it trivial when agenda has to suit > northern hemisphere vacation times when we live in a globe where > vacation times are diverse. Not all of northern hemisphere, either: in Finland, July is the main vacation month, August being already too cold for a summer vacation. So, for me August would work just fine. :-) -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 09:34:33 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:34:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <20140130142752.GA24669@tarvainen.info> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> <20140130142752.GA24669@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <0A1D8348-33A0-47D2-B815-030837280729@gmail.com> On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> On Jan 31 01:50, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) wrote: >> >> I understand that but find it trivial when agenda has to suit >> northern hemisphere vacation times when we live in a globe where >> vacation times are diverse. > > Not all of northern hemisphere, either: in Finland, July is the main > vacation month, August being already too cold for a summer vacation. > > So, for me August would work just fine. :-) > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen Thanks Tapani and I apologise to all those who live in the North for placing a blanket blame and rant. My sincere apologies for the brief rant. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 09:52:41 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:52:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <0A1D8348-33A0-47D2-B815-030837280729@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> <20140130142752.GA24669@tarvainen.info> <0A1D8348-33A0-47D2-B815-030837280729@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sala, I think there is missing point here , it is not about north hemisphere or vacations time but about predictability : a conference at such level cannot have the option to change dates or not being confirmed till last minutes (like for the last edition) if you check IETF or ICANN meetings , you will find that the dates and regions (not necessarily the host country or city) are planned for some years. I don't think that any host country would try to change the dates for another UN conference in such way. it may happen for exceptional reasons but it is probably rare. We need to think on how to strengthen IGF, make it predictable in term of organisation and not being in so ad-hoc mode. that is not sustainable. Another point, IGF is not just 4 days of workshops and pre-events but also some process beforehand to accept proposals and approve workshops, shifting dates have impact on planning for everybody . Best, Rafik 2014-01-30 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > >> On Jan 31 01:50, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ( > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) wrote: > >> > >> I understand that but find it trivial when agenda has to suit > >> northern hemisphere vacation times when we live in a globe where > >> vacation times are diverse. > > > > Not all of northern hemisphere, either: in Finland, July is the main > > vacation month, August being already too cold for a summer vacation. > > > > So, for me August would work just fine. :-) > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > Thanks Tapani and I apologise to all those who live in the North for > placing a blanket blame and rant. My sincere apologies for the brief rant. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 30 09:54:21 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:54:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change (was: February 19-20...) In-Reply-To: <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > I doubt anyone would buy a fixed ticket 9 months in advance. I did. The risk assessment must weigh the risk of losing the money paid for the ticket (if it can't be used because date or location is changed irresponsibly) against the risk of the the price of the ticket potentially increasing very significantly closer to the date. > Not after last year. I'd expect any reasonable organization to make sure that when that kind of problem has occurred, the necessary lessons will be learned and applied. > Can we talk about real issues. It is a real issue. Please. Declaring a problem to be a non-issue does nothing to improve the situation. 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 10:16:09 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:16:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <5E8FC23B-671E-4C7D-8105-7DA9EA3B393C@gmail.com> Thank you, Sala, for the useful summary of what is going on in the MAG without having to read through yet one more long paling list! George On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > For those who may not have the time to go through the link and thread on change in dates for the IGF. Many thanks Bill for providing the link and allowing us to read and follow the discussions. > > I must say that Fiona Alexander and Olga Cavalli showed sensitivity and wisdom in engaging in an inquiry with the host country. > > Whilst Markus made an assessment an interpretation that the change of dates was diplomatic speak for finding a lower cost option, I found that other MAG members were agreeing without engaging in an inquiry. > <> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 10:44:17 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 03:44:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <5E8FC23B-671E-4C7D-8105-7DA9EA3B393C@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <5E8FC23B-671E-4C7D-8105-7DA9EA3B393C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <96E19734-23E0-4EE0-BEFB-76A56003E742@gmail.com> You are welcome George. The email I missed which was that eventually there was confirmation from the local host that there was a significant cost savings from the change in dates. @Rafik yes you are right. Sent from my iPad > On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:16 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > Thank you, Sala, for the useful summary of what is going on in the MAG without having to read through yet one more long paling list! > > George > > >> On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> For those who may not have the time to go through the link and thread on change in dates for the IGF. Many thanks Bill for providing the link and allowing us to read and follow the discussions. >> >> I must say that Fiona Alexander and Olga Cavalli showed sensitivity and wisdom in engaging in an inquiry with the host country. >> >> Whilst Markus made an assessment an interpretation that the change of dates was diplomatic speak for finding a lower cost option, I found that other MAG members were agreeing without engaging in an inquiry. > > <> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 30 10:57:14 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (Chantal Lebrument) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:57:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change (was: February 19-20...) In-Reply-To: <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> Message-ID: <1C9B2E79-4466-41F1-B91C-1469093F1808@gmail.com> +1 I did too.. for Sharm El Sheikh meeting and I lost a lot of money Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 30 janv. 2014 à 15:54, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > Adam Peake wrote: > >> I doubt anyone would buy a fixed ticket 9 months in advance. > > I did. > > The risk assessment must weigh the risk of losing the money paid for > the ticket (if it can't be used because date or location is changed > irresponsibly) against the risk of the the price of the ticket > potentially increasing very significantly closer to the date. > >> Not after last year. > > I'd expect any reasonable organization to make sure that when that > kind of problem has occurred, the necessary lessons will be learned and > applied. > >> Can we talk about real issues. > > It is a real issue. > > Please. > > Declaring a problem to be a non-issue does nothing to improve the > situation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 30 11:03:08 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:33:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Somewhat OT - delegation of global ICT experts visiting Rwanda to engage with local women in ICT Message-ID: <5575ADB9-F379-4BEE-809A-2FF44D2E08AD@hserus.net> For our african colleagues. http://www.rwandaeye.com/news/3670/global-ict-experts-to-inspire-rwandan-women/ --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jan 30 11:05:08 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:35:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change (was: February 19-20...) In-Reply-To: <1C9B2E79-4466-41F1-B91C-1469093F1808@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> <1C9B2E79-4466-41F1-B91C-1469093F1808@gmail.com> Message-ID: For those who want to book well in advance for conference travel, the evidence (empirical, to be sure) I have from booking conference tickets over the past several years is that this article is right, 80..90 days before is when tickets are the cheapest. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-the-optimal-time-to-book-a-flight/ --srs (iPad) > On 30-Jan-2014, at 21:27, Chantal Lebrument wrote: > > +1 > I did too.. for Sharm El Sheikh meeting and I lost a lot of money > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > >> Le 30 janv. 2014 à 15:54, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> I doubt anyone would buy a fixed ticket 9 months in advance. >> >> I did. >> >> The risk assessment must weigh the risk of losing the money paid for >> the ticket (if it can't be used because date or location is changed >> irresponsibly) against the risk of the the price of the ticket >> potentially increasing very significantly closer to the date. >> >>> Not after last year. >> >> I'd expect any reasonable organization to make sure that when that >> kind of problem has occurred, the necessary lessons will be learned and >> applied. >> >>> Can we talk about real issues. >> >> It is a real issue. >> >> Please. >> >> Declaring a problem to be a non-issue does nothing to improve the >> situation. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 30 11:15:32 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:15:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change In-Reply-To: <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> Message-ID: <52EA7AA4.8000109@acm.org> On 30-Jan-14 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >Not after last year. > I'd expect any reasonable organization to make sure that when that > kind of problem has occurred, the necessary lessons will be learned and > applied. > That is a really good point. 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 Thu Jan 30 12:06:10 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:06:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52EA8682.9010502@acm.org> Hi, I am more concerned about preparation time for the IGF. With the world meeting in Brazil in April, most energy up to April will be focused on Brazil. Then after Brazil, there will be recuperation from Brazil, and we will have June and July for focusing the IGF - even less than we have for Brazil. Beginning of September was already ridiculous in my view. Perhaps they can look for a later date that is also cheap enough. Who is planing this thing anyway? avri On 30-Jan-14 08:50, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > I understand that but find it trivial when agenda has to suit northern > hemisphere vacation times when we live in a globe where vacation times > are diverse. That was the point I was highlighting. > > Best Wishes, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:31 AM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Nobody is debating whether any country is perfect, the Syrian refugee >> crisis, or anything similar (?). There is a discussion in the MAG >> about the scheduling of the IGF meeting, and the possible consequences >> for the IGF in terms of attendance, political support, costs to >> participants, the planning process, etc. of it being unilaterally >> changed to mid-August. If anyone is interested, the discussion is on >> the open MAG list, >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > > wrote: >> >>> - Best Bits (double-posting) >>> >>> +1 to these sentiments. No country is perfect. >>> >>> >>> On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:31, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands >>>> of displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family >>>> member and destruction to their communities, for some reason it just >>>> seems trivial especially if what is being debated and objected to is >>>> "vacation time". >>>> >>>> I mean like "seriously" "what the funny?" >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 30 13:51:09 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:51:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <52EA8682.9010502@acm.org> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> <52EA8682.9010502@acm.org> Message-ID: <20140130195109.080c3131@quill> Avri Doria wrote: > I am more concerned about preparation time for the IGF. > > With the world meeting in Brazil in April, most energy up to April > will be focused on Brazil. Then after Brazil, there will be > recuperation from Brazil, and we will have June and July for focusing > the IGF - even less than we have for Brazil. > > Beginning of September was already ridiculous in my view. Perhaps > they can look for a later date that is also cheap enough. These are very good points. If the dates are changed, the IGF should absolutely be moved to a later date. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 30 14:05:43 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:05:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] plane ticket hardships resulting from potential IGF date change (was: February 19-20...) In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <20140130150551.08c0466a@quill> <8006D4F8-5C04-4DAF-B8B7-D26327281591@glocom.ac.jp> <20140130155421.34d85b4f@quill> <1C9B2E79-4466-41F1-B91C-1469093F1808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140130200543.32351c26@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > For those who want to book well in advance for conference travel, the > evidence (empirical, to be sure) I have from booking conference > tickets over the past several years is that this article is right, > 80..90 days before is when tickets are the cheapest. > > http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-the-optimal-time-to-book-a-flight/ Interesting article - thanks Suresh! (In my browser the article doesn't actually display, but it's there in the HTML page source, and I've copy-pasted it from there.) Of course, the findings don't really apply when well before the time that is optimal on average, there's an offer priced low enough that you know that the price won't go significantly lower; that is the reason why I chose to book early in this case. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 30 14:32:00 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:32:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <20140130195109.080c3131@quill> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <638F4F99-E01A-4055-B73E-0513B61BCA91@gmail.com> <52EA8682.9010502@acm.org> <20140130195109.080c3131@quill> Message-ID: <52EAA8B0.6040303@acm.org> Hi, In looking at the calendar, I think the end of November beginning of December looks good. And it would have the advantage of coming after all the sound and fury of the year culminates and would be a great way to wrap up Ig2014. Better than having PP14 (at which most of us will not gain admittance) be the last big meeting of the year. avri On 30-Jan-14 13:51, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> I am more concerned about preparation time for the IGF. >> >> With the world meeting in Brazil in April, most energy up to April >> will be focused on Brazil. Then after Brazil, there will be >> recuperation from Brazil, and we will have June and July for focusing >> the IGF - even less than we have for Brazil. >> >> Beginning of September was already ridiculous in my view. Perhaps >> they can look for a later date that is also cheap enough. > > These are very good points. If the dates are changed, the IGF should > absolutely be moved to a later date. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 17:36:48 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:36:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Snowden revelations of NSA spying on Copenhagen climate talks spark anger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <062601cf1e0b$c3c42940$4b4c7bc0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru Balasubramaniam Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:11 PM To: a2k at lists.keionline.org Subject: [A2k] Snowden revelations of NSA spying on Copenhagen climate talks spark anger http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/30/snowden-nsa-spying-copenh agen-climate-talks Snowden revelations of NSA spying on Copenhagen climate talks spark anger Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show NSA kept US negotiators abreast of their rivals' positions at 2009 summit - John Vidal and Suzanne Goldenberg - - theguardian.com , Thursday 30 January 2014 17.54 GMT Developing countries have reacted angrily to revelations that the United States spied on other governments at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show how the US National Security Agency (NSA ) monitored communication between key countries before and during the conference to give their negotiators advance information about other positions at the high-profile meeting where world leaders including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel failed to agree to a strong deal on climate change . Jairam Ramesh, the then Indian environment minister and a key player in the talks that involved 192 countries and 110 heads of state, said: "Why the hell did they do this and at the end of this, what did they get out of Copenhagen? They got some outcome but certainly not the outcome they wanted. It was completely silly of them. First of all, they didn't get what they wanted. With all their hi-tech gizmos and all their snooping, ultimately the Basic countries [Brazil, South Africa, India and China] bailed Obama out. With all their snooping what did they get?" Martin Khor, an adviser to developing countries at the summit and director of the South Centre thinktank, said: "Would you play poker with someone who can see your cards? Spying on one another like this is absolutely not on. When someone has an upper hand is very disconcerting. There should be an assurance in negotiations like this that powerful players are not going to gain undue advantage with technological surveillance. "For negotiations as complex as these we need maximum goodwill and trust. It is absolutely critical. If there is anything that prevents a level playing field, that stops negotiations being held on equal grounds. It disrupts the talks," he said. The NSA would keep US negotiators abreast of their rivals' positions, the document says. "Leaders and negotiating teams from around the world will undoubtedly be engaging in intense last-minute policy formulating; at the same time, they will be holding sidebar discussions with their counterparts, details of which are of great interest to our policymakers ... Signals intelligence will undoubtedly play a significant role in keeping our negotiators as well informed as possible throughout the negotiations," it reads. The document shows the NSA had provided advance details of the Danish plan to "rescue" the talks should they founder, and also had learned of China's efforts to coordinate its position with India before the conference. The talks - which ended in disarray after the US, working with a small group of 25 countries, tried to ram through an agreement that other developing countries mostly rejected - were marked by subterfuge, passion and chaos. Members of the Danish negotiating team told the Danish newspaper Information that both the US and Chinese delegations were "peculiarly well-informed" about closed-door discussions. "They simply sat back, just as we had feared they would if they knew about our document," one source told Information. British negotiators at the summit declined to say whether their negotiating positions had been informed by US intelligence. "It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters," said a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the UK government department that led the negotiations in Copenhagen. Ed Miliband, who as energy secretary led the political negotiations for Britain, declined to comment. However, at the time, he was furious that the Danish text which the US had received advance information about,had been leaked to the Guardian . But one key negotiator for the G77 group of 132 developing countries, who asked not to be named, said at the time that he strongly believed that the US was eavesdropping on his meetings and would only talk in a secure back room that he thought was not bugged. "I was well aware that they seemed to know what our position was before we did," he told the Guardian. But Ramesh said that he had no idea that the US was spying on him. "I didn't get a sense that I was being followed. I didn't get a sense that my phones were tapped," he said. Civil society groups from around the world condemned the US. "The UN climate talks are supposed to be about building trust - that's been under threat for years because of the US backward position on climate action - these revelations will only crack that trust further," said Meena Raman, negotiations expert from the Malaysian-based Third World Network. "Fighting climate change is a global struggle, and these revelations clearly show that the US government is more interested in crassly protecting a few vested interests," said Brandon Wu, senior policy analyst with development organisation ActionAid in the United States. US climate activist and founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, called the spying revelations "insane and disgusting". US diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks in 2010 showed that the CIA had sought intelligence from UN diplomats about the negotiations in advance of the summit, and Snowden documents published last year revealed the US had spied on Indonesia at the Bali climate summit in 2007 . _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 31 09:54:30 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:54:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aoWEbimk76SFAlU@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 15:32:51 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Adam Peake writes >The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little >consideration given to the "consultation" part. How many people still turn up for the "consultation" part - especially as they might as well turn up as MAG observers the following day and heckle from there. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 31 09:56:01 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:56:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4 at gmail.com>, at 22:19:46 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Fouad Bajwa writes >If I am correct, the upcoming IGF is in Turkey Where in Turkey though. Lots of Turkey is "not Istanbul". -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 31 09:59:39 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:59:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 10:31:00 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >When we complain about slight inconvenience when there are thousands of >displaced persons who suffer daily from the loss of a family member and >destruction to their communities, for some reason it just seems trivial >especially if what is being debated and objected to is "vacation time" One important issue is that flights and hotels in "peak holiday time" will be significantly more expensive. It's not just about attendees having to be away from their holidaying family for a week. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 31 10:05:33 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:05:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <96E19734-23E0-4EE0-BEFB-76A56003E742@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> <4D67E6E0-5982-4956-851D-2F7755F5F23C@consensus.pro> <5E8FC23B-671E-4C7D-8105-7DA9EA3B393C@gmail.com> <96E19734-23E0-4EE0-BEFB-76A56003E742@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ieUqeC9u76SFAmO@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <96E19734-23E0-4EE0-BEFB-76A56003E742 at gmail.com>, at 03:44:17 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >The email I missed which was that eventually there was confirmation from >the local host that there was a significant cost savings from the change >in dates. Cost saving by the host, on account of no-one else wanting to hire the conference venue in high summer? What about the costs of attendees competing with tourists descending on the area for that very same month. -- 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Jan 31 10:59:19 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:59:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF Message-ID: Hi Norbert’s plane ticket is valid. 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. 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 12:26:05 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 05:26:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for confirmation re: dates. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 1, 2014, at 3:59 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Norbert’s plane ticket is valid. > > 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. > > 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 > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Jan 31 12:36:16 2014 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:36:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Bill. Nice weekend. > From: wjdrake at gmail.com > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:59:19 +0100 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF > > Hi > > Norbert’s plane ticket is valid. > > 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. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t