From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Sat Mar  1 01:26:33 2014
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:26:33 -0500
Subject: [governance] ISOC Peru, no es Erick Iriarte
In-Reply-To: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org>
References: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org>
Message-ID: <20140301012633.19557ugstbljcrkp@www.ciencitec.com>

Distinguidos miembros de esta lista, a la comunidad internacional:
Acabo de leer en esta lista de correos, un Comunicado suscrito por  
alguien que firma como Presidente de ISOC, por lo cual pregunto:
1.- Puede hablar de DD.HH. y de respeto a la libertad de expresion,  
cuando faltando al Artículo 18º del Estauto de ISOC, que a la letra  
dice:
El Comité Directivo es el órgano encargado de dirigir y administrar la  
asociación. El mismo estará compuesto por 6 (SEIS) miembros titulares,  
quienes desempeñarán los siguientes cargos: Presidente,  
Vice-Presidente, Secretario, Tesorero y dos vocales titulares.El  
mandato de los mismos durará dos años.
Han pasado mas de 2 años y no SE HA HECHO RENOVACION ALGUNA DEL CARGO.
Este suscrito así como otros miembros no han recibido convocatoria  
alguna para la renovación, pisoteando los Estatutos, los mismo que han  
sido inscritos en Registros Públicos de Lima, con la dirección de la  
Oficina de Erick Iriarte.
Desde que asumio la Presidencia, de la cual el se autopostulo, ha  
tenido una seride de discriminaciones con este suscrito, por lo que  
este comunicado es una forma mas de buscar notoriedad, reiterando su  
egocetrismo y obviando a quienes no le simpatizan y entornillandose al  
cargo.
En aras de cumplir con los Estatutos que en su artículo 2° que a la  
letra dice:
•	Promover la estrecha comunicación y acercamiento de los miembros de  
la Internet Society que residan en el Perú.
Y esto Erick Iriarte no ha cumplido.
Demando la atención de la Comunidad y a la Directiva de ISOC  
Internacional, para que tome cartas en el asunto de personajes que no  
promueven ni incentivan Internet, tan solo bsucan el protagonismo,  
utilizando la insignia de ISOC, para sus apetitos personales.
Atentamente
José F. Callo Romero
Miembro Fundador del Capitulo de ISOC Perú



Erick Iriarte Ahon <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org> escribió:

> El Internet es un instrumento de Democracia: actos de censura en su  
> contra afectan los #ddhh
>
> Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de los derechos  
> humanos, y por ende instrumento de la democracia, nos permite el  
> acceso a la información pública, el libre ejercicio de la libertad  
> de culto y de credo político así como el ejercicio pleno de la  
> libertad de expresión. Toda forma de bloqueo por razones políticas,  
> raciales, de opción sexual, entre otros, bajo premisas de seguridad  
> nacional, sin un adecuado proceso basado en la presunción de  
> inocencia y el respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, es ajeno  
> a la vida democrática de cualquier país.
>
> En Venezuela:
>
> 1. Sabemos a ciencia cierta que están bloqueados a nivel de DNS por  
> orden o amenaza del regulador (CONATEL) so pena de perder la  
> concesión para actuar como ISP, los sites que mencionan la  
> cotización del “dólar paralelo”, basados en una Ley de Ilícitos  
> Cambiarios (hoy derogada), que prohibía mencionar en cualquier medio  
> la tasa de cambio paralela.
>
> 2. Sabemos, por palabras del mismo gobierno, que tanto en TV  
> (eliminados de los sistemas de tv por cable), como en Internet, está  
> bloqueado el canal colombiano de noticias NTN24.
>
> 3. Sospechamos, pero NO podemos confirmar que están bloqueados  
> decenas de sitios de noticias, amparados en el art. 27 de la Ley de  
> Responsabilidad en Radio, TV y Medios Electrónicos, al considerar el  
> gobierno la información de esos site como generadores de zozobra.  
> Hemos tratado de ubicar la información a través de los ISP pero  
> temen suministrarla.
>
> 4. Sabemos que la infraestructura de Internet (pública y privada)  
> está defectuosa por falta de inversión y mantenimiento, sin embargo  
> ha crecido el número de usuarios conectados, y la cantidad de datos  
> que éstos procesan, lo que en algunos casos genera colapsos en la  
> red en sitios o servidores. Eso sin contar problemas como el del  
> Táchira donde no había Internet, pero no había energía eléctrica ni  
> agua! mas por bloquear un servidor, por que hace muchos años que en  
> San Cristobal se va la energia electrica por horas, eso es parte de  
> lo que los tiene molestos.
>
> 5. Buena parte del tráfico de Internet en momentos de picos de  
> tráfico, se genera a causa de las censuras o autocensuras impuestas  
> a los canales de TV y las emisoras de radio, causando que la gente  
> deba acudir a Internet masivamente como único medio de información.
>
> 6. No ayuda la situación que en momentos críticos como los descritos  
> hackers estén atacando al gobierno con denegaciones de servicio,  
> coadyuvando a colapsar aún más la poca red que tenemos.
>
> Siendo lo antes expuesto,  demandamos inmediato cese de acciones del  
> gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra los ddhh, y  
> en especial contra la libertad de expresión, en la forma de control  
> de contenidos, bloqueo de sitios web, impedimento de acceso a  
> Internet, así como todo acto que violente las libertades ciudadanas.
>
> Lima, 28 de Febrero de 2014
>
> Erick Iriarte
> Presidente
> ISOC Peru
>
>




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar  1 14:31:26 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 19:31:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYpdk5nm9=AL54KW=zjRc-=aUguDtrk+fWu5vJc42HpU_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYpdk5nm9=AL54KW=zjRc-=aUguDtrk+fWu5vJc42HpU_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9-cM-eK5QnMUe63+QF6zFA_SyySTxCuHfjubwhzRr69w@mail.gmail.com>

 Thank you, dear Louis, for your complementing report (to what was already
posted, thank you Stephanie), the materials and maybe more notably for your
statement at this meeting.

Best regards,

Mawaki


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>wrote:

> *Report on the 1st meeting of the High Level Multistakeholder Committee
> (HLMC) of "NETmundial" *. . .
>
> . . . (www.netmundial.org), the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the
> Future of Internet Governance that will take place in São Paulo, Brazil on
> April 23-24, 2014.
>
> Report written by Louis Pouzin, civil society member of the HLMC.
> - - -
>
> I was invited by the HLMC chairman, Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of
> Communications of Brazil [1]. I flew from Paris to attend this meeting.
>
> The attendance list (courtesy Daniel Fink) is in [2].
> A man was sitting behind a name tag "Turkey".
>
> The audio system was not working, and the air conditioning was quite
> noisy. Then it was uneasy to follow conversations from the other end of the
> table.
>
> Stephanie Perrin's report gives an excellent perception of the overall
> content. Actually, besides usual generalities on the São Paulo Mundial, the
> presentation of the organizational structure and deadlines for
> contributions were simply confirmations of already published information.
>
> One may notice that there was no development on a roadmap, even though it
> had been mentioned as an objective of the present meeting.
>
> At some point Tarek Kamel (ICANN) used the term "mondialisation" instead
> of "globalization".
>
> Daniel Sepulveda's (USA) declaration was likely a reading of the text from
> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm. His speech seemed to
> me a bit shorter than the text, but I could recognize some statements.
>
> As the meeting seemed approaching a conclusion I made an intervention
> summarized as follows.
>
> Principles for a future internet governance are debated in many groups of
> the civil society. Even though wordings may differ the substance is
> definitely converging towards a set of a dozen (more or less) principles.
> For brevity I will mention a sample of the ones being presently drafted for
> Net Mundial.
>
> 1- On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
> related to worldwide internet governance.
>
>   Louis
>
> Attachments.
>
> [1] invitation
> [2] attendance list
> - - -
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140301/3dd94049/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sun Mar  2 09:11:17 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 15:11:17 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org>
 <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com>
 <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <175774151.7769.1393769477112.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d10>

Very interesting, indeed ! Thanks Parminder.

 

Can anybody on these lists explain me the difference (conceptual, ethical, philosophical, ...) between WEF and WSIS, or between the ITU SG and Klaus Schwab ?

 

Oh, yes, there is one difference : WSIS is an "open process" (no business card conditioned) ... but only for "the polite CS" !

 

Best regards

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 09/02/14 07:03
> De : "parminder" 
> A : bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
> 
> 
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
> 
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
> 
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
> 
> Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, 
> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> > I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes.
> >
> > M
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
> > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
> >
> >> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
> >> multistakeholderism)
> >
> > Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater concerns.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/afc4278a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 15:55:06 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:55:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and beyond.
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including traveling
and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one might be
traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during the
limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...

Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want to
do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late for
starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or simply
as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might seek
consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig challenges of
the day, even beyond São Paulo.)

On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."

So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
in São Paulo?

Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent days
two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.

[SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]

1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.

5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
related to worldwide internet governance.

[SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]

Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions
within the multistakeholder ICANN model.

This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only - the
future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
the preferred multistakeholder model.

Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet
governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN)
were in existence.

ROADMAP

This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need
a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions
under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about
details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

 In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
following roadmap is proposed.

1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
bearing in mind the following criteria:

(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
interference;

(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
administration of the root zone;

(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone;
and

(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."

2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.

3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
consultation with major stakeholders.

4. The solution must have the following characteristics

(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks

(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .

(c) is an inclusive model

(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area

END of proposals

Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions on
critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple of
days.

Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
about the above.

Thank you.

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/633dc14a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Mar  2 17:53:19 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:53:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Official Minutes and slides 1st
 HLMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYpdk5nm9=AL54KW=zjRc-=aUguDtrk+fWu5vJc42HpU_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYpdk5nm9=AL54KW=zjRc-=aUguDtrk+fWu5vJc42HpU_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <146A9A16-3C7A-4839-873F-6317FD119957@mail.utoronto.ca>

We just received the minutes and slides from the first HLMC meeting.  
regards,
Stephanie Perrin

On 2014-02-28, at 9:04 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:

> Report on the 1st meeting of the High Level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC) of “NETmundial” . . .
> 
> . . . (www.netmundial.org), the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that will take place in São Paulo, Brazil on April 23-24, 2014. 
> 
> Report written by Louis Pouzin, civil society member of the HLMC.
> - - -
> 
> I was invited by the HLMC chairman, Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications of Brazil [1]. I flew from Paris to attend this meeting.
> 
> The attendance list (courtesy Daniel Fink) is in [2].
> A man was sitting behind a name tag "Turkey".
> 
> The audio system was not working, and the air conditioning was quite noisy. Then it was uneasy to follow conversations from the other end of the table.
> 
> Stephanie Perrin's report gives an excellent perception of the overall content. Actually, besides usual generalities on the São Paulo Mundial, the presentation of the organizational structure and deadlines for contributions were simply confirmations of already published information.
> 
> One may notice that there was no development on a roadmap, even though it had been mentioned as an objective of the present meeting.
> 
> At some point Tarek Kamel (ICANN) used the term "mondialisation" instead of "globalization".
> 
> Daniel Sepulveda's (USA) declaration was likely a reading of the text from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm. His speech seemed to me a bit shorter than the text, but I could recognize some statements.
> 
> As the meeting seemed approaching a conclusion I made an intervention summarized as follows.
> 
> Principles for a future internet governance are debated in many groups of the civil society. Even though wordings may differ the substance is definitely converging towards a set of a dozen (more or less) principles. For brevity I will mention a sample of the ones being presently drafted for Net Mundial.
> 
> 1- On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> 
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources.
> 
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or privileged position.
> 
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic development.
> 
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>   
>   Louis
> 
> Attachments.
> 
> [1] invitation
> [2] attendance list
> - - -
> 
> <09 - Invitation - HLC BCN.pdf><Attendance_list.rtf>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/330818cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NETMundial_HLMC meeting_Chairman slides.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 639220 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/330818cf/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/330818cf/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NETmundial HLMC meeting minutes_Feb 24.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 629899 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/330818cf/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/330818cf/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Mar  2 18:58:57 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:58:57 +1100
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>

Hi Mawaki

I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it may prove difficult

I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus statement could be achieved. So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis’s list of principles, ie


1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic development.

5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.


I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned this was being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if you would like to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that would allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a co-signatory?


Ian Peter

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams 
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and beyond.

Dear All, 

First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...

Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)

On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."


So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings in São Paulo?   

Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows. 

[SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28] 

1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic development.

5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.



[SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]


Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.

This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.

Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.

ROADMAP

This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.

1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:

(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference;

(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone;

(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and

(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."

2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.

3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.

4. The solution must have the following characteristics

(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks

(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .

(c) is an inclusive model

(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area

END of proposals 

Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple of days.

Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought about the above.

Thank you. 


Mawaki



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/2d443139/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 22:35:30 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 19:35:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] LIVE-STREAM - RightsCon 2014
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcq4jB4pAWqagFueP_9u-R_jP-GpGG6+aojBTZrf-2qcA@mail.gmail.com>

RightsCon live - info below

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Access Now <access at accessnow.org>
Date: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Subject: RightsCon 2014 Ready to Launch!
To: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>


   <https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f20/735869621/VEsH/>
 *Be a part of Access' premier global summit on tech and human rights! Tune
in to the RIghtsCon livestream, and join the conversation on your favorite
social media platform.*<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsE/>

<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsF/>

,

After months of planning and preparing, we're ready to kick off *RightsCon
Silicon Valley 2014
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f22/735869621/VEsC/>*,
the premier gathering of tech policy leaders, entrepreneurs, and digital
rights defenders from around the world. I'm in awe of the amazing lineup of
speakers and experts, and we want to make sure you have access to them too!

Starting tomorrow, *RightsCon* participants will spend three days exploring
the progress and challenges at the intersection of human rights and new
technologies. The discussions will be all about building an internet that
puts users at the center, and remains open and free for future generations
-- and that's why we're committed to making sure you can take part in
*RightsCon*, either in person or online.

*Join us at RightsCon from anywhere: Watch our
livestream!*<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsD/>

*RightsCon is dedicated to future-proofing human rights.* We're going to be
tackling the most difficult issues of the day, and seeking a path forward.
If you can, we want you to join us in person in San Francisco. But if you
can't make it in person, it doesn't mean you can't still be a part of
RightsCon!

Things kick off tomorrow (Monday) at 1pm PST. Here are some of the ways you
can participate at RightsCon without getting out of your pajamas:

   - *Watch the stream* online on
Youtube<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5d/735869621/VEsA/>,
   Facebook<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5c/735869621/VEsB/>,
   or on Google+<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5f/735869621/VEsO/>
   - *Follow the conversation *with our live blogs and social media updates
   - *Join in* via Twitter
#rightscon<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5e/735869621/VEsP/>or
   @accessnow<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f59/735869621/VEsHBQ/>,
   or on Google+ to comment and ask questions.

*Check out what's happening: Watch the livestream!
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsHBA/>*

*RightsCon* is the only conference dedicated to helping companies,
governments, and civil society address the challenges -- and opportunities
-- of tech and human rights. And it wouldn't be possible without the
support of Access community members like you.

Thank you,

Brett Solomon
Executive Director, Access


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

*Access defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the
world. By combining tech-driven policy, user engagement, and direct
technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. To
help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f58/735869621/VEsHBw/>.
To
reply, please email info at accessnow.org <info at accessnow.org>. **To
unsubscribe, go to: **https://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5b/735869621/VEsHBg/>*



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140302/280bd01e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar  3 05:20:51 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:20:51 -0800
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
References:     <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <bccd642a8ac0b1618423bb906dfd87a6.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>


I think the principles laid out by Louis are excellent and should be
adopted by IGC as its submission to NetMundial

parminder


> Hi Mawaki
>
> I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for
> NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it
> may prove difficult
>
> I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have
> different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus
> statement could be achieved. So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis’s
> list of principles, ie
>
>
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>
>
> I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned this was
> being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if you would like
> to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that
> would allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a
> co-signatory?
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> From: Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> beyond.
>
> Dear All,
>
> First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
> prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
> immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including
> traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one
> might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during
> the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
>
> Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want
> to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
> suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late
> for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
> March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
> delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or
> simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might
> seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig
> challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
>
> On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
> dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
>
>
> So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
> are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
> in São Paulo?
>
> Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent
> days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
> discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
> about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
> problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.
>
> [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>
>
>
> [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
>
> Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions
> within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
>
> This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the
> future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> the preferred multistakeholder model.
>
> Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet
> governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg
> ICANN) were in existence.
>
> ROADMAP
>
> This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
> in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer
> need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar
> functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns
> about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
>
> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> following roadmap is proposed.
>
> 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
> the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> bearing in mind the following criteria:
>
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> interference;
>
> (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> administration of the root zone;
>
> (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root
> zone; and
>
> (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
>
> 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
>
> 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> consultation with major stakeholders.
>
> 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
>
> (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> attacks
>
> (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
>
> (c) is an inclusive model
>
> (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
>
> END of proposals
>
> Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions
> on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple
> of days.
>
> Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
> about the above.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Mar  3 05:27:19 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:27:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <bccd642a8ac0b1618423bb906dfd87a6.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
	<bccd642a8ac0b1618423bb906dfd87a6.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20140303112719.67658a07@quill>

Sounds good to me.

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:20:51 -0800
schrieb parminder at itforchange.net:

> 
> I think the principles laid out by Louis are excellent and should be
> adopted by IGC as its submission to NetMundial
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> > Hi Mawaki
> >
> > I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission
> > for NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding
> > consensus call it may prove difficult
> >
> > I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many
> > here have different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont
> > think a consensus statement could be achieved. So perhaps we should
> > concentrate on Louis’s list of principles, ie
> >
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do
> > off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
> > criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
> > language, or economic resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and
> > neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of
> > a dominant or privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
> > benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying
> > richer economic development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
> > Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to
> > participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> > I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned
> > this was being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if
> > you would like to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB
> > Tuesday, I think that would allow time for consensus adoption and
> > submission, or for IGC to be a co-signatory?
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > From: Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> > To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> > Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> > beyond.
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself
> > for the prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same
> > time in other immediate commitments with various demands on our
> > time, including traveling and the burdens that come with (starting
> > with the reason why one might be traveling in the first place which
> > can only be carried out during the limited time of such travels.)
> > Anyway, you get my drift...
> >
> > Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might
> > want to do this year by building on those who have already posted
> > ideas and suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While
> > it may be late for starting to prepare a written submission which
> > is expected to be in by March 8, perhaps we may still start working
> > out something that could be delivered during the proceedings if we
> > are given the opportunity (or simply as a first step in the
> > formulation of some basic ideas we might seek consensus on at some
> > point in the process in response to Ig challenges of the day, even
> > beyond São Paulo.)
> >
> > On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list
> > a note dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
> >
> >
> > So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead
> > is: How are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in
> > the proceedings in São Paulo?
> >
> > Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the
> > recent days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good
> > starting point for discussing any possible input by IGC or
> > subsets/member of IGC. One is more about principles and the other
> > more focused on a practical solution to one problem. I have copied
> > and pasted them as follows.
> >
> > [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do
> > off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
> > criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
> > language, or economic resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and
> > neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of
> > a dominant or privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
> > benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying
> > richer economic development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
> > Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to
> > participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> >
> > [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> >
> > Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA
> > functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
> >
> > This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only –
> > the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of
> > much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many
> > to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.
> >
> > Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current
> > internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance
> > institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.
> >
> > ROADMAP
> >
> > This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary
> > processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the
> > Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more
> > productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of
> > ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this
> > direction appears to have widespread support from governments,
> > civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> >
> > In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and
> > productively, the following roadmap is proposed.
> >
> > 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for
> > management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN
> > multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:
> >
> > (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> > interference;
> >
> > (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> > administration of the root zone;
> >
> > (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> > administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified
> > root zone; and
> >
> > (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this
> > function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public
> > interest."
> >
> > 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all
> > major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first
> > draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in
> > September 2014.
> >
> > 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that
> > outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper
> > (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.
> >
> > 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> >
> > (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> > attacks
> >
> > (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way
> > that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
> >
> > (c) is an inclusive model
> >
> > (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
> >
> > END of proposals
> >
> > Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> > statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct
> > positions on critical points. She will probably say more on that in
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your
> > thought about the above.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar  3 05:28:18 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:58:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <CALLeeavR6+bnseob4mhn8V6zU4mKkHN3roU0+RFz+8C=08T=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>	<89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <CALLeeavR6+bnseob4mhn8V6zU4mKkHN3roU0+RFz+8C=08T=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53145942.8020401@ITforChange.net>

Agree. Important for IGC to make this submission to NetMundial
regards
Guru

On 03/03/2014 03:55 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote:
> Very important. +1 to Louis proposal.
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
>  "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Mawaki
>     I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of
>     submission for NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a
>     preceding consensus call it may prove difficult
>     I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many
>     here have different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont
>     think a consensus statement could be achieved. So perhaps we
>     should concentrate on Louis’s list of principles, ie
>     1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do
>     off-line.
>
>     2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>     criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
>     language, or economic resources.
>
>     3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and
>     neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage
>     of a dominant or privileged position.
>
>     4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
>     benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying
>     richer economic development.
>
>     5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
>     Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to
>     participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>     I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned
>     this was being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if
>     you would like to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB
>     Tuesday, I think that would allow time for consensus adoption and
>     submission, or for IGC to be a co-signatory?
>     Ian Peter
>     *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
>     *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
>     *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
>     Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>     *Subject:* [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial
>     and beyond.
>     Dear All,
>     First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself
>     for the prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same
>     time in other immediate commitments with various demands on our
>     time, including traveling and the burdens that come with (starting
>     with the reason why one might be traveling in the first place
>     which can only be carried out during the limited time of such
>     travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
>     Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC
>     might want to do this year by building on those who have already
>     posted ideas and suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São
>     Paulo. While it may be late for starting to prepare a written
>     submission which is expected to be in by March 8, perhaps we may
>     still start working out something that could be delivered during
>     the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or simply as a
>     first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might seek
>     consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig
>     challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
>     On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list
>     a note dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
>
>     So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead
>     is: How are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in
>     the proceedings in São Paulo?
>     Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the
>     recent days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good
>     starting point for discussing any possible input by IGC or
>     subsets/member of IGC. One is more about principles and the other
>     more focused on a practical solution to one problem. I have copied
>     and pasted them as follows.
>     [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
>     1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do
>     off-line.
>
>     2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>     criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
>     language, or economic resources.
>
>     3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and
>     neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage
>     of a dominant or privileged position.
>
>     4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
>     benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying
>     richer economic development.
>
>     5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
>     Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to
>     participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>
>     [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
>     Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA
>     functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
>
>     This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only –
>     the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of
>     much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many
>     to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.
>
>     Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current
>     internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance
>     institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.
>
>     ROADMAP
>
>     This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary
>     processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the
>     Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more
>     productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of
>     ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this
>     direction appears to have widespread support from governments,
>     civil society, technical community, and private sector.
>
>     In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and
>     productively, the following roadmap is proposed.
>
>     1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for
>     management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN
>     multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:
>
>     (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
>     interference;
>
>     (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of
>     the administration of the root zone;
>
>     (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
>     administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified
>     root zone; and
>
>     (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this
>     function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public
>     interest."
>
>     2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all
>     major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first
>     draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in
>     September 2014.
>
>     3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that
>     outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper
>     (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.
>
>     4. The solution must have the following characteristics
>
>     (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue
>     litigation attacks
>
>     (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way
>     that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
>
>     (c) is an inclusive model
>
>     (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
>
>     END of proposals
>     Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very
>     short statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture
>     succinct positions on critical points. She will probably say more
>     on that in the next couple of days.
>     Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your
>     thought about the above.
>     Thank you.
>
>     Mawaki
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/356b998a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar  3 05:34:33 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:34:33 -0800
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
References:     <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>

> Hi Mawaki
>
> I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for
> NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it
> may prove difficult
>
> I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have
> different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus
> statement could be achieved.

Ian

We can take the spirit of your IANA proposal while at the same time
accommodating differences about it perhaps through a formulation like the
following:

"Unilateral oversight by the US government of CIR management is
undemocratic and untenable. It should immediately be replaced by an
appropriate alternate mechanism where all people of the world have an
equal role"

We may add this principle to Luois' principles..

parminder







So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis’s
> list of principles, ie
>
>
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>
>
> I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned this was
> being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if you would like
> to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that
> would allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a
> co-signatory?
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> From: Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> beyond.
>
> Dear All,
>
> First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
> prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
> immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including
> traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one
> might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during
> the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
>
> Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want
> to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
> suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late
> for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
> March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
> delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or
> simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might
> seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig
> challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
>
> On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
> dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
>
>
> So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
> are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
> in São Paulo?
>
> Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent
> days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
> discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
> about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
> problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.
>
> [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> activities related to worldwide internet governance.
>
>
>
> [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
>
> Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions
> within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
>
> This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the
> future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> the preferred multistakeholder model.
>
> Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet
> governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg
> ICANN) were in existence.
>
> ROADMAP
>
> This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
> in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer
> need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar
> functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns
> about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
>
> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> following roadmap is proposed.
>
> 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
> the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> bearing in mind the following criteria:
>
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> interference;
>
> (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> administration of the root zone;
>
> (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root
> zone; and
>
> (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
>
> 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
>
> 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> consultation with major stakeholders.
>
> 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
>
> (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> attacks
>
> (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
>
> (c) is an inclusive model
>
> (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
>
> END of proposals
>
> Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions
> on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple
> of days.
>
> Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
> about the above.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Mon Mar  3 05:25:15 2014
From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:25:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CALLeeavR6+bnseob4mhn8V6zU4mKkHN3roU0+RFz+8C=08T=bQ@mail.gmail.com>

Very important. +1 to Louis proposal.

Sonigitu Ekpe

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



On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Hi Mawaki
>
> I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for
> NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it
> may prove difficult
>
> I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have
> different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus
> statement could be achieved. So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis's
> list of principles, ie
>
>
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
> related to worldwide internet governance.
>
> I would immediately agree to these - and I know Louis mentioned this was
> being worked on for a NetMundial submission - Louis, if you would like to,
> and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that would
> allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a
> co-signatory?
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Deirdre
> Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> beyond.
>
>  Dear All,
>
> First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
> prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
> immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including traveling
> and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one might be
> traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during the
> limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
>
> Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want
> to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
> suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late
> for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
> March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
> delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or simply
> as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might seek
> consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig challenges of
> the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
>
> On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
> dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
>
> So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
> are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
> in São Paulo?
>
> Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent
> days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
> discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
> about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
> problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.
>
> [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
>
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> resources.
>
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
>
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> development.
>
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
> related to worldwide internet governance.
>
> [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
>
> Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions
> within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
>
> This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only - the
> future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> the preferred multistakeholder model.
>
> Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet
> governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN)
> were in existence.
>
> ROADMAP
>
> This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
> in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need
> a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions
> under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about
> details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
>
> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> following roadmap is proposed.
>
> 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
> the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> bearing in mind the following criteria:
>
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> interference;
>
> (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> administration of the root zone;
>
> (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone;
> and
>
> (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
>
> 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
>
> 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> consultation with major stakeholders.
>
> 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
>
> (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> attacks
>
> (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
>
> (c) is an inclusive model
>
> (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
>
> END of proposals
>
> Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions on
> critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple of
> days.
>
> Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
> about the above.
>
> Thank you.
>
>   Mawaki
>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/d833ada5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar  3 07:50:51 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:20:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
 <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <14487ff1c58.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

That formulation makes a number of other assumptions I find wrong (starting 
with the generalization about critical internet resources)

The language is perhaps too combative to achieve consensus



On 3 March 2014 4:04:56 PM parminder at itforchange.net wrote:

> > Hi Mawaki
> >
> > I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for
> > NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it
> > may prove difficult
> >
> > I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have
> > different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus
> > statement could be achieved.
>
> Ian
>
> We can take the spirit of your IANA proposal while at the same time
> accommodating differences about it perhaps through a formulation like the
> following:
>
> "Unilateral oversight by the US government of CIR management is
> undemocratic and untenable. It should immediately be replaced by an
> appropriate alternate mechanism where all people of the world have an
> equal role"
>
> We may add this principle to Luois' principles..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis’s
> > list of principles, ie
> >
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> > such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> > resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> > among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> > privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> > all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> > development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> > Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> > activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> > I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned this was
> > being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if you would like
> > to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that
> > would allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a
> > co-signatory?
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > From: Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> > To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> > Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> > beyond.
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
> > prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
> > immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including
> > traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one
> > might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during
> > the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
> >
> > Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want
> > to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
> > suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late
> > for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
> > March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
> > delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or
> > simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might
> > seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig
> > challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
> >
> > On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
> > dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
> >
> >
> > So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
> > are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
> > in São Paulo?
> >
> > Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent
> > days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
> > discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
> > about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
> > problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.
> >
> > [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> > such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> > resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> > among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> > privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> > all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> > development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> > Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> > activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> >
> > [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> >
> > Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions
> > within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
> >
> > This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the
> > future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> > discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> > the preferred multistakeholder model.
> >
> > Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet
> > governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg
> > ICANN) were in existence.
> >
> > ROADMAP
> >
> > This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
> > in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer
> > need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar
> > functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns
> > about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> > governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> >
> > In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> > following roadmap is proposed.
> >
> > 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
> > the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> > bearing in mind the following criteria:
> >
> > (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> > interference;
> >
> > (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> > administration of the root zone;
> >
> > (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> > administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root
> > zone; and
> >
> > (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> > is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
> >
> > 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> > stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> > discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
> >
> > 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> > consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> > consultation with major stakeholders.
> >
> > 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> >
> > (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> > attacks
> >
> > (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> > supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
> >
> > (c) is an inclusive model
> >
> > (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
> >
> > END of proposals
> >
> > Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> > statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions
> > on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple
> > of days.
> >
> > Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
> > about the above.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your 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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar  3 09:02:44 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:02:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
Message-ID: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Dear all:
Today IGP released an innovative proposal to resolve the 15-year controversy over the United States government's special relationship to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf

The proposal, which involves removing root zone management functions from ICANN and creating an independent and neutral private sector consortium to take them over, will be presented at the Singapore ICANN meeting March 21, and has also been submitted to the "NETMundial" Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23 and 24.

We propose four basic principles to guide the reform of the IANA functions: 1. Keep the IANA function clerical; separate it from policy; 2. Don't internationalize political oversight: end it; 3. Align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance; 4. De-link globalization of the IANA function from broader ICANN policy process reforms. Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to entertain any proposals that embody them.


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/bf984389/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Mon Mar  3 09:15:41 2014
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:15:41 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
 <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1901259316.16871.1393856141429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c16>

+1

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack 






> Message du 03/03/14 11:35
> De : parminder at itforchange.net
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Ian Peter" 
> Copie à : "Mawaki Chango" , "Deirdre Williams" , "Louis Pouzin (well)" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and beyond.
> 
> > Hi Mawaki
> >
> > I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for
> > NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it
> > may prove difficult
> >
> > I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have
> > different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus
> > statement could be achieved.
> 
> Ian
> 
> We can take the spirit of your IANA proposal while at the same time
> accommodating differences about it perhaps through a formulation like the
> following:
> 
> "Unilateral oversight by the US government of CIR management is
> undemocratic and untenable. It should immediately be replaced by an
> appropriate alternate mechanism where all people of the world have an
> equal role"
> 
> We may add this principle to Luois' principles..
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis’s
> > list of principles, ie
> >
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> > such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> > resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> > among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> > privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> > all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> > development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> > Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> > activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> > I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned this was
> > being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if you would like
> > to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that
> > would allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a
> > co-signatory?
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > From: Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> > To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> > Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> > beyond.
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
> > prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
> > immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including
> > traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one
> > might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during
> > the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
> >
> > Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want
> > to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
> > suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late
> > for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
> > March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
> > delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or
> > simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might
> > seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig
> > challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
> >
> > On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
> > dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
> >
> >
> > So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
> > are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
> > in São Paulo?
> >
> > Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent
> > days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
> > discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
> > about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
> > problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.
> >
> > [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> > such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> > resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> > among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> > privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> > all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> > development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> > Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> > activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> >
> > [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> >
> > Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former IANA functions
> > within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
> >
> > This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the
> > future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> > discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> > the preferred multistakeholder model.
> >
> > Indeed, IANA itself was established in an era before current internet
> > governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg
> > ICANN) were in existence.
> >
> > ROADMAP
> >
> > This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
> > in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer
> > need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar
> > functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns
> > about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> > governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> >
> > In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> > following roadmap is proposed.
> >
> > 1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
> > the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> > bearing in mind the following criteria:
> >
> > (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> > interference;
> >
> > (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> > administration of the root zone;
> >
> > (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> > administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root
> > zone; and
> >
> > (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> > is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
> >
> > 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> > stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> > discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
> >
> > 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> > consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> > consultation with major stakeholders.
> >
> > 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> >
> > (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> > attacks
> >
> > (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> > supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
> >
> > (c) is an inclusive model
> >
> > (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
> >
> > END of proposals
> >
> > Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> > statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions
> > on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple
> > of days.
> >
> > Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
> > about the above.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/f2500a8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Mar  3 09:17:02 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <bccd642a8ac0b1618423bb906dfd87a6.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
 <bccd642a8ac0b1618423bb906dfd87a6.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <17783992.16921.1393856222090.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c16>

+1

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 03/03/14 11:21
> De : parminder at itforchange.net
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Ian Peter" 
> Copie à : "Mawaki Chango" , "Deirdre Williams" , "Louis Pouzin (well)" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and beyond.
> 
> 
> I think the principles laid out by Louis are excellent and should be
> adopted by IGC as its submission to NetMundial
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> > Hi Mawaki
> >
> > I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission for
> > NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding consensus call it
> > may prove difficult
> >
> > I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many here have
> > different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont think a consensus
> > statement could be achieved. So perhaps we should concentrate on Louis’s
> > list of principles, ie
> >
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> > such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> > resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> > among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> > privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> > all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> > development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> > Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> > activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> > I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned this was
> > being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if you would like
> > to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB Tuesday, I think that
> > would allow time for consensus adoption and submission, or for IGC to be a
> > co-signatory?
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > From: Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> > To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> > Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> > beyond.
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the
> > prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other
> > immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including
> > traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one
> > might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during
> > the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...
> >
> > Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want
> > to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and
> > suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While it may be late
> > for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by
> > March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be
> > delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or
> > simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might
> > seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig
> > challenges of the day, even beyond São Paulo.)
> >
> > On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note
> > dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "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."
> >
> >
> > So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How
> > are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings
> > in São Paulo?
> >
> > Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent
> > days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for
> > discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more
> > about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one
> > problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows.
> >
> > [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
> > such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
> > resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> > among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> > privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
> > all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
> > development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
> > Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> > activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> >
> > [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> >
> > Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former IANA functions
> > within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
> >
> > This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the
> > future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> > discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> > the preferred multistakeholder model.
> >
> > Indeed, IANA itself was established in an era before current internet
> > governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg
> > ICANN) were in existence.
> >
> > ROADMAP
> >
> > This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes
> > in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer
> > need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar
> > functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns
> > about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> > governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> >
> > In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> > following roadmap is proposed.
> >
> > 1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of
> > the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> > bearing in mind the following criteria:
> >
> > (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> > interference;
> >
> > (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> > administration of the root zone;
> >
> > (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> > administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root
> > zone; and
> >
> > (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> > is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
> >
> > 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> > stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> > discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
> >
> > 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> > consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> > consultation with major stakeholders.
> >
> > 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> >
> > (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> > attacks
> >
> > (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> > supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
> >
> > (c) is an inclusive model
> >
> > (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
> >
> > END of proposals
> >
> > Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> > statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions
> > on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple
> > of days.
> >
> > Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought
> > about the above.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/9d866fd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar  3 09:33:57 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:33:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
 <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



-----Original Message-----
>"Unilateral oversight by the US government of CIR management is 
> undemocratic and untenable. It should immediately be replaced by 
> an appropriate alternate mechanism where all people of the world 
>have an equal role"

While I don't fundamentally disagree with this as a principle, I don't think it makes any sense to call for the "immediate" replacement of U.S. oversight without having a viable and well thought-out proposal for an alternative. 

There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen ICANN by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes IANA out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the world's TLD registries and root server operators. 

At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals as something worth considering. Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the merits of either approach. 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  3 09:37:17 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:07:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I am sure you can find broad consensus for this Milton and am glad to +1 
it, but there are too many devils in the details here.

If you end all political oversight that is a tough sell beyond that power 
abhors a vacuum. So I am afraid this won't get as much traction as it should.



On 3 March 2014 7:33:21 PM Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Dear all:
> Today IGP released an innovative proposal to resolve the 15-year 
> controversy over the United States government's special relationship to the 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). 
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf
>
> The proposal, which involves removing root zone management functions from 
> ICANN and creating an independent and neutral private sector consortium to 
> take them over, will be presented at the Singapore ICANN meeting March 21, 
> and has also been submitted to the "NETMundial" Global Multistakeholder 
> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23 
> and 24.
>
> We propose four basic principles to guide the reform of the IANA functions: 
> 1. Keep the IANA function clerical; separate it from policy; 2. Don't 
> internationalize political oversight: end it; 3. Align incentives to ensure 
> the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance; 4. De-link 
> globalization of the IANA function from broader ICANN policy process 
> reforms. Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we 
> look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to 
> entertain any proposals that embody them.
>
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/b3a655c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar  3 10:09:13 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:09:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Suresh
We are suggesting that whatever political oversight exists has been badly misdirected.
There is this obsessive focus on management of the root zone file, which is not and should never be a policy making or political function.  There is too little emphasis on the actual policy making process and the accountability and responsiveness thereof.

We believe that the latter problem (policy making) needs to be detached from the operational and technical maintenance of the root zone. And fixing the policy problems will take a long time – it could involve anything from re-incorporation of ICANN in Geneva to a new international treaty or convention.

In this proposal, the real detail-devils lie in the governance arrangements among the ccTLDs and gTLD registries. However, before those details can be resolved, one must first agree that we need to create a DNSA. I am sure that if people think a DNSA is a good idea (or at least a better idea than the status quo or various other alternatives) then those details can be worked out.

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 9:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA


I am sure you can find broad consensus for this Milton and am glad to +1 it, but there are too many devils in the details here.

If you end all political oversight that is a tough sell beyond that power abhors a vacuum. So I am afraid this won't get as much traction as it should.

On 3 March 2014 7:33:21 PM Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
Dear all:
Today IGP released an innovative proposal to resolve the 15-year controversy over the United States government’s special relationship to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf

The proposal, which involves removing root zone management functions from ICANN and creating an independent and neutral private sector consortium to take them over, will be presented at the Singapore ICANN meeting March 21, and has also been submitted to the “NETMundial” Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23 and 24.

We propose four basic principles to guide the reform of the IANA functions: 1. Keep the IANA function clerical; separate it from policy; 2. Don’t internationalize political oversight: end it; 3. Align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance; 4. De-link globalization of the IANA function from broader ICANN policy process reforms. Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to entertain any proposals that embody them.


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/75c4ebe4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Mar  3 10:28:18 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:28:18 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Message-ID: <624114259.18960.1393860498469.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e24>

Very interesting, indeed ... even one month later (apologies) ! Thanks Parminder.

 

I have still some difficulties to distinguish the difference (poltical, ethical, philosophical, conceptual, ...) between WEF and WSIS, or between the ITU SG and Klaus Schwab ?

 

Is that serious, Doctor ? :-)

 

Let'shope I'm not alone

 

Best

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 09/02/14 07:03
> De : "parminder" 
> A : bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
> 
> 
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
> 
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
> 
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
> 
> Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, 
> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> > I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes.
> >
> > M
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
> > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
> >
> >> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
> >> multistakeholderism)
> >
> > Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater concerns.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/529f3729/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar  3 10:33:34 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:03:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D9B6B79D-27CE-45C4-BE1E-75D799A89602@hserus.net>

The root zone file battle is a stalking horse - and an "easy to visualize" stalking horse which can be used to justify to various official's political leadership whatever power struggle takes place to sieze control of ICANN in general.

"The USA has a hidden master root"

"All the root servers are in the global north. The horror".  [anycast instance? what's that?]

... etc etc.  Easier to whip up support from the broader and more uninformed sections of government / civil society / industry when you take pains to obsess about some such big, static and easy to visualize target.

--srs (iPad)

> On 03-Mar-2014, at 20:39, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Suresh
> We are suggesting that whatever political oversight exists has been badly misdirected.
> There is this obsessive focus on management of the root zone file, which is not and should never be a policy making or political function.  There is too little emphasis on the actual policy making process and the accountability and responsiveness thereof.
>  
> We believe that the latter problem (policy making) needs to be detached from the operational and technical maintenance of the root zone. And fixing the policy problems will take a long time – it could involve anything from re-incorporation of ICANN in Geneva to a new international treaty or convention.
>  
> In this proposal, the real detail-devils lie in the governance arrangements among the ccTLDs and gTLD registries. However, before those details can be resolved, one must first agree that we need to create a DNSA. I am sure that if people think a DNSA is a good idea (or at least a better idea than the status quo or various other alternatives) then those details can be worked out.  
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 9:37 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>  
> I am sure you can find broad consensus for this Milton and am glad to +1 it, but there are too many devils in the details here.
> 
> If you end all political oversight that is a tough sell beyond that power abhors a vacuum. So I am afraid this won't get as much traction as it should.
> 
> On 3 March 2014 7:33:21 PM Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear all:
> Today IGP released an innovative proposal to resolve the 15-year controversy over the United States government’s special relationship to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf
>  
> The proposal, which involves removing root zone management functions from ICANN and creating an independent and neutral private sector consortium to take them over, will be presented at the Singapore ICANN meeting March 21, and has also been submitted to the “NETMundial” Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23 and 24.
>  
> We propose four basic principles to guide the reform of the IANA functions: 1. Keep the IANA function clerical; separate it from policy; 2. Don’t internationalize political oversight: end it; 3. Align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance; 4. De-link globalization of the IANA function from broader ICANN policy process reforms. Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to entertain any proposals that embody them.
>  
>  
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/33a81bb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Mon Mar  3 10:38:10 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:38:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Paper: IEEE 2014 Fourth International
 Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE2014)
Message-ID: <017801cf36f6$95199450$bf4cbcf0$@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, British Telecommunications, UK

- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/a22d6e04/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  3 12:03:49 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:03:49 +0000
Subject: [governance] CS Strategy meeting @ RightsCon - Google Hangout link
Message-ID: <CADFgh1013vm804DAyJmiX080gv9f9RB+_VZBKRoFOph5aTDeCQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi folks

If your time  allows, you can join the Civil Society strategy meeting  at
Rightscon.
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/76cpjlj36lple8r8p65qob2e7o?hl=en

AGENDA

Part 1: Contributions (~1 hour)

   - Finalizing contributions for the Net Mundial meeting
   - Building consensus between various contributions
   - Strategizing on ways to build support for CS position among other
   stakeholders

Part 2: Planning for NetMundial (~1 hour)

   - Brainstorming on media strategy, guiding the narrative on how this
   event is covered
   - Input on the agenda for the preparatory civil society meeting in São
   Paulo, and delivering a message to that meeting on behalf of those who
   won't be there

Part 3: Looking beyond São Paulo, more precisely 2015+ (~1 hour)

   - Updates on WSIS+10, post-2015 development agenda, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/ac829816/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  3 13:39:08 2014
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:39:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] ISOC Peru, no es Erick Iriarte
In-Reply-To: <20140301012633.19557ugstbljcrkp@www.ciencitec.com>
References: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org> <20140301012633.19557ugstbljcrkp@www.ciencitec.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLu3Hm+KMakeyrsPRhrYLg=0ZNuB=kUMM3-M2Zo4bgxp+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Te doy mi solidaridad mi amigo Callo, yo también en parte e sentido la
discriminación de ciertos personajes que tu mencionas, es mas tuve que
renunciar a opinar por dignidad.




Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


El día 1 de marzo de 2014, 1:26,  <jfcallo at ciencitec.com> escribió:
> Distinguidos miembros de esta lista, a la comunidad internacional:
> Acabo de leer en esta lista de correos, un Comunicado suscrito por alguien
> que firma como Presidente de ISOC, por lo cual pregunto:
> 1.- Puede hablar de DD.HH. y de respeto a la libertad de expresion, cuando
> faltando al Artículo 18º del Estauto de ISOC, que a la letra dice:
> El Comité Directivo es el órgano encargado de dirigir y administrar la
> asociación. El mismo estará compuesto por 6 (SEIS) miembros titulares,
> quienes desempeñarán los siguientes cargos: Presidente, Vice-Presidente,
> Secretario, Tesorero y dos vocales titulares.El mandato de los mismos durará
> dos años.
> Han pasado mas de 2 años y no SE HA HECHO RENOVACION ALGUNA DEL CARGO.
> Este suscrito así como otros miembros no han recibido convocatoria alguna
> para la renovación, pisoteando los Estatutos, los mismo que han sido
> inscritos en Registros Públicos de Lima, con la dirección de la Oficina de
> Erick Iriarte.
> Desde que asumio la Presidencia, de la cual el se autopostulo, ha tenido una
> seride de discriminaciones con este suscrito, por lo que este comunicado es
> una forma mas de buscar notoriedad, reiterando su egocetrismo y obviando a
> quienes no le simpatizan y entornillandose al cargo.
> En aras de cumplir con los Estatutos que en su artículo 2° que a la letra
> dice:
> •       Promover la estrecha comunicación y acercamiento de los miembros de
> la Internet Society que residan en el Perú.
> Y esto Erick Iriarte no ha cumplido.
> Demando la atención de la Comunidad y a la Directiva de ISOC Internacional,
> para que tome cartas en el asunto de personajes que no promueven ni
> incentivan Internet, tan solo bsucan el protagonismo, utilizando la insignia
> de ISOC, para sus apetitos personales.
> Atentamente
> José F. Callo Romero
> Miembro Fundador del Capitulo de ISOC Perú
>
>
>
> Erick Iriarte Ahon <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org> escribió:
>
>> El Internet es un instrumento de Democracia: actos de censura en su contra
>> afectan los #ddhh
>>
>> Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de los derechos humanos, y
>> por ende instrumento de la democracia, nos permite el acceso a la
>> información pública, el libre ejercicio de la libertad de culto y de credo
>> político así como el ejercicio pleno de la libertad de expresión. Toda forma
>> de bloqueo por razones políticas, raciales, de opción sexual, entre otros,
>> bajo premisas de seguridad nacional, sin un adecuado proceso basado en la
>> presunción de inocencia y el respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, es
>> ajeno a la vida democrática de cualquier país.
>>
>> En Venezuela:
>>
>> 1. Sabemos a ciencia cierta que están bloqueados a nivel de DNS por orden
>> o amenaza del regulador (CONATEL) so pena de perder la concesión para actuar
>> como ISP, los sites que mencionan la cotización del “dólar paralelo”,
>> basados en una Ley de Ilícitos Cambiarios (hoy derogada), que prohibía
>> mencionar en cualquier medio la tasa de cambio paralela.
>>
>> 2. Sabemos, por palabras del mismo gobierno, que tanto en TV (eliminados
>> de los sistemas de tv por cable), como en Internet, está bloqueado el canal
>> colombiano de noticias NTN24.
>>
>> 3. Sospechamos, pero NO podemos confirmar que están bloqueados decenas de
>> sitios de noticias, amparados en el art. 27 de la Ley de Responsabilidad en
>> Radio, TV y Medios Electrónicos, al considerar el gobierno la información de
>> esos site como generadores de zozobra. Hemos tratado de ubicar la
>> información a través de los ISP pero temen suministrarla.
>>
>> 4. Sabemos que la infraestructura de Internet (pública y privada) está
>> defectuosa por falta de inversión y mantenimiento, sin embargo ha crecido el
>> número de usuarios conectados, y la cantidad de datos que éstos procesan, lo
>> que en algunos casos genera colapsos en la red en sitios o servidores. Eso
>> sin contar problemas como el del Táchira donde no había Internet, pero no
>> había energía eléctrica ni agua! mas por bloquear un servidor, por que hace
>> muchos años que en San Cristobal se va la energia electrica por horas, eso
>> es parte de lo que los tiene molestos.
>>
>> 5. Buena parte del tráfico de Internet en momentos de picos de tráfico, se
>> genera a causa de las censuras o autocensuras impuestas a los canales de TV
>> y las emisoras de radio, causando que la gente deba acudir a Internet
>> masivamente como único medio de información.
>>
>> 6. No ayuda la situación que en momentos críticos como los descritos
>> hackers estén atacando al gobierno con denegaciones de servicio, coadyuvando
>> a colapsar aún más la poca red que tenemos.
>>
>> Siendo lo antes expuesto,  demandamos inmediato cese de acciones del
>> gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra los ddhh, y en
>> especial contra la libertad de expresión, en la forma de control de
>> contenidos, bloqueo de sitios web, impedimento de acceso a Internet, así
>> como todo acto que violente las libertades ciudadanas.
>>
>> Lima, 28 de Febrero de 2014
>>
>> Erick Iriarte
>> Presidente
>> ISOC Peru
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  3 13:41:47 2014
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:41:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] Comunicado ISOC Peru sobre situacion de internet
 en venezuela
In-Reply-To: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org>
References: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLsvfD4vck-r+VJ2QyM++basq7aBXGFE+oM6=MRFuyddPA@mail.gmail.com>

¿Porque no llama a nuevas elecciones, en ISOC Perú como corresponde?


Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


El día 28 de febrero de 2014, 22:02, Erick Iriarte Ahon
<eiriarte at alfa-redi.org> escribió:
> El Internet es un instrumento de Democracia: actos de censura en su contra afectan los #ddhh
>
> Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de los derechos humanos, y por ende instrumento de la democracia, nos permite el acceso a la información pública, el libre ejercicio de la libertad de culto y de credo político así como el ejercicio pleno de la libertad de expresión. Toda forma de bloqueo por razones políticas, raciales, de opción sexual, entre otros, bajo premisas de seguridad nacional, sin un adecuado proceso basado en la presunción de inocencia y el respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, es ajeno a la vida democrática de cualquier país.
>
> En Venezuela:
>
> 1. Sabemos a ciencia cierta que están bloqueados a nivel de DNS por orden o amenaza del regulador (CONATEL) so pena de perder la concesión para actuar como ISP, los sites que mencionan la cotización del “dólar paralelo”, basados en una Ley de Ilícitos Cambiarios (hoy derogada), que prohibía mencionar en cualquier medio la tasa de cambio paralela.
>
> 2. Sabemos, por palabras del mismo gobierno, que tanto en TV (eliminados de los sistemas de tv por cable), como en Internet, está bloqueado el canal colombiano de noticias NTN24.
>
> 3. Sospechamos, pero NO podemos confirmar que están bloqueados decenas de sitios de noticias, amparados en el art. 27 de la Ley de Responsabilidad en Radio, TV y Medios Electrónicos, al considerar el gobierno la información de esos site como generadores de zozobra. Hemos tratado de ubicar la información a través de los ISP pero temen suministrarla.
>
> 4. Sabemos que la infraestructura de Internet (pública y privada) está defectuosa por falta de inversión y mantenimiento, sin embargo ha crecido el número de usuarios conectados, y la cantidad de datos que éstos procesan, lo que en algunos casos genera colapsos en la red en sitios o servidores. Eso sin contar problemas como el del Táchira donde no había Internet, pero no había energía eléctrica ni agua! mas por bloquear un servidor, por que hace muchos años que en San Cristobal se va la energia electrica por horas, eso es parte de lo que los tiene molestos.
>
> 5. Buena parte del tráfico de Internet en momentos de picos de tráfico, se genera a causa de las censuras o autocensuras impuestas a los canales de TV y las emisoras de radio, causando que la gente deba acudir a Internet masivamente como único medio de información.
>
> 6. No ayuda la situación que en momentos críticos como los descritos hackers estén atacando al gobierno con denegaciones de servicio, coadyuvando a colapsar aún más la poca red que tenemos.
>
> Siendo lo antes expuesto,  demandamos inmediato cese de acciones del gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra los ddhh, y en especial contra la libertad de expresión, en la forma de control de contenidos, bloqueo de sitios web, impedimento de acceso a Internet, así como todo acto que violente las libertades ciudadanas.
>
> Lima, 28 de Febrero de 2014
>
> Erick Iriarte
> Presidente
> ISOC Peru
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Mon Mar  3 15:10:42 2014
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:10:42 -0500
Subject: [governance] ISOC Peru, no es Erick Iriarte
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLu3Hm+KMakeyrsPRhrYLg=0ZNuB=kUMM3-M2Zo4bgxp+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org>
 <20140301012633.19557ugstbljcrkp@www.ciencitec.com>
 <CAAYFVLu3Hm+KMakeyrsPRhrYLg=0ZNuB=kUMM3-M2Zo4bgxp+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140303151042.21297id364f6re0y@www.ciencitec.com>

Distinguido José Félix Arias Ynche
Previo saludo, agradesco vuestra solidaridad, un lujo tener  
cyberamigos como usted ilustre José Felix, hay que avanzar y  
desenmascarar a oportunistas que nada bien hacen a la Comunidad de  
Internet.
Participe en internautaperu, vuestra voz siempre será escuchada y  
tomada en cuenta.
Fraternalmente



> Te doy mi solidaridad mi amigo Callo, yo también en parte e sentido la
> discriminación de ciertos personajes que tu mencionas, es mas tuve que
> renunciar a opinar por dignidad.
>
>
>
>
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>
>
> El día 1 de marzo de 2014, 1:26,  <jfcallo at ciencitec.com> escribió:
>> Distinguidos miembros de esta lista, a la comunidad internacional:
>> Acabo de leer en esta lista de correos, un Comunicado suscrito por alguien
>> que firma como Presidente de ISOC, por lo cual pregunto:
>> 1.- Puede hablar de DD.HH. y de respeto a la libertad de expresion, cuando
>> faltando al Artículo 18º del Estauto de ISOC, que a la letra dice:
>> El Comité Directivo es el órgano encargado de dirigir y administrar la
>> asociación. El mismo estará compuesto por 6 (SEIS) miembros titulares,
>> quienes desempeñarán los siguientes cargos: Presidente, Vice-Presidente,
>> Secretario, Tesorero y dos vocales titulares.El mandato de los mismos durará
>> dos años.
>> Han pasado mas de 2 años y no SE HA HECHO RENOVACION ALGUNA DEL CARGO.
>> Este suscrito así como otros miembros no han recibido convocatoria alguna
>> para la renovación, pisoteando los Estatutos, los mismo que han sido
>> inscritos en Registros Públicos de Lima, con la dirección de la Oficina de
>> Erick Iriarte.
>> Desde que asumio la Presidencia, de la cual el se autopostulo, ha tenido una
>> seride de discriminaciones con este suscrito, por lo que este comunicado es
>> una forma mas de buscar notoriedad, reiterando su egocetrismo y obviando a
>> quienes no le simpatizan y entornillandose al cargo.
>> En aras de cumplir con los Estatutos que en su artículo 2° que a la letra
>> dice:
>> •       Promover la estrecha comunicación y acercamiento de los miembros de
>> la Internet Society que residan en el Perú.
>> Y esto Erick Iriarte no ha cumplido.
>> Demando la atención de la Comunidad y a la Directiva de ISOC Internacional,
>> para que tome cartas en el asunto de personajes que no promueven ni
>> incentivan Internet, tan solo bsucan el protagonismo, utilizando la insignia
>> de ISOC, para sus apetitos personales.
>> Atentamente
>> José F. Callo Romero
>> Miembro Fundador del Capitulo de ISOC Perú
>>
>>
>>
>> Erick Iriarte Ahon <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org> escribió:
>>
>>> El Internet es un instrumento de Democracia: actos de censura en su contra
>>> afectan los #ddhh
>>>
>>> Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de los derechos humanos, y
>>> por ende instrumento de la democracia, nos permite el acceso a la
>>> información pública, el libre ejercicio de la libertad de culto y de credo
>>> político así como el ejercicio pleno de la libertad de expresión.  
>>> Toda forma
>>> de bloqueo por razones políticas, raciales, de opción sexual, entre otros,
>>> bajo premisas de seguridad nacional, sin un adecuado proceso basado en la
>>> presunción de inocencia y el respeto irrestricto de los derechos  
>>> humanos, es
>>> ajeno a la vida democrática de cualquier país.
>>>
>>> En Venezuela:
>>>
>>> 1. Sabemos a ciencia cierta que están bloqueados a nivel de DNS por orden
>>> o amenaza del regulador (CONATEL) so pena de perder la concesión  
>>> para actuar
>>> como ISP, los sites que mencionan la cotización del “dólar paralelo”,
>>> basados en una Ley de Ilícitos Cambiarios (hoy derogada), que prohibía
>>> mencionar en cualquier medio la tasa de cambio paralela.
>>>
>>> 2. Sabemos, por palabras del mismo gobierno, que tanto en TV (eliminados
>>> de los sistemas de tv por cable), como en Internet, está bloqueado el canal
>>> colombiano de noticias NTN24.
>>>
>>> 3. Sospechamos, pero NO podemos confirmar que están bloqueados decenas de
>>> sitios de noticias, amparados en el art. 27 de la Ley de Responsabilidad en
>>> Radio, TV y Medios Electrónicos, al considerar el gobierno la  
>>> información de
>>> esos site como generadores de zozobra. Hemos tratado de ubicar la
>>> información a través de los ISP pero temen suministrarla.
>>>
>>> 4. Sabemos que la infraestructura de Internet (pública y privada) está
>>> defectuosa por falta de inversión y mantenimiento, sin embargo ha  
>>> crecido el
>>> número de usuarios conectados, y la cantidad de datos que éstos  
>>> procesan, lo
>>> que en algunos casos genera colapsos en la red en sitios o servidores. Eso
>>> sin contar problemas como el del Táchira donde no había Internet, pero no
>>> había energía eléctrica ni agua! mas por bloquear un servidor, por que hace
>>> muchos años que en San Cristobal se va la energia electrica por horas, eso
>>> es parte de lo que los tiene molestos.
>>>
>>> 5. Buena parte del tráfico de Internet en momentos de picos de tráfico, se
>>> genera a causa de las censuras o autocensuras impuestas a los canales de TV
>>> y las emisoras de radio, causando que la gente deba acudir a Internet
>>> masivamente como único medio de información.
>>>
>>> 6. No ayuda la situación que en momentos críticos como los descritos
>>> hackers estén atacando al gobierno con denegaciones de servicio,  
>>> coadyuvando
>>> a colapsar aún más la poca red que tenemos.
>>>
>>> Siendo lo antes expuesto,  demandamos inmediato cese de acciones del
>>> gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra los ddhh, y en
>>> especial contra la libertad de expresión, en la forma de control de
>>> contenidos, bloqueo de sitios web, impedimento de acceso a Internet, así
>>> como todo acto que violente las libertades ciudadanas.
>>>
>>> Lima, 28 de Febrero de 2014
>>>
>>> Erick Iriarte
>>> Presidente
>>> ISOC Peru
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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  Mon Mar  3 15:11:47 2014
From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:11:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <D9B6B79D-27CE-45C4-BE1E-75D799A89602@hserus.net>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<D9B6B79D-27CE-45C4-BE1E-75D799A89602@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CALLeeatFQ4_xBCJ-YpEieXcTiw6_=0mBk=fBoCmq2Z_GNyX0Fg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Suresh,

Yes the USA may have the hidden "master root" due to their innovative
ideas. So much investment on the Internet by the USA which is business!

Sonigitu Ekpe

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



On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> The root zone file battle is a stalking horse - and an "easy to visualize"
> stalking horse which can be used to justify to various official's political
> leadership whatever power struggle takes place to sieze control of ICANN in
> general.
>
> "The USA has a hidden master root"
>
> "All the root servers are in the global north. The horror".  [anycast
> instance? what's that?]
>
> ... etc etc.  Easier to whip up support from the broader and more
> uninformed sections of government / civil society / industry when you take
> pains to obsess about some such big, static and easy to visualize target.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 03-Mar-2014, at 20:39, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>  Suresh
>
> We are suggesting that whatever political oversight exists has been badly
> misdirected.
>
> There is this obsessive focus on management of the root zone file, which
> is not and should never be a policy making or political function.  There is
> too little emphasis on the actual policy making process and the
> accountability and responsiveness thereof.
>
>
>
> We believe that the latter problem (policy making) needs to be detached
> from the operational and technical maintenance of the root zone. And fixing
> the policy problems will take a long time - it could involve anything from
> re-incorporation of ICANN in Geneva to a new international treaty or
> convention.
>
>
>
> In this proposal, the real detail-devils lie in the governance
> arrangements among the ccTLDs and gTLD registries. However, before those
> details can be resolved, one must first agree that we need to create a
> DNSA. I am sure that if people think a DNSA is a good idea (or at least a
> better idea than the status quo or various other alternatives) then those
> details can be worked out.
>
>
>
> *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net<suresh at hserus.net>]
>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 3, 2014 9:37 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>
>
>
> I am sure you can find broad consensus for this Milton and am glad to +1
> it, but there are too many devils in the details here.
>
> If you end all political oversight that is a tough sell beyond that power
> abhors a vacuum. So I am afraid this won't get as much traction as it
> should.
>
> On 3 March 2014 7:33:21 PM Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
> Today IGP released an innovative proposal to resolve the 15-year
> controversy over the United States government's special relationship to the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf
>
>
>
> The proposal, which involves removing root zone management functions from
> ICANN and creating an independent and neutral private sector consortium to
> take them over, will be presented at the Singapore ICANN meeting March 21,
> and has also been submitted to the "NETMundial" Global Multistakeholder
> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in *São *Paulo, Brazil,
> April 23 and 24.
>
>
>
> We propose four basic principles to guide the reform of the IANA
> functions: 1. Keep the IANA function clerical; separate it from policy; 2.
> Don't internationalize political oversight: end it; 3. Align incentives to
> ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance; 4. De-link
> globalization of the IANA function from broader ICANN policy process
> reforms. Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we
> look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to
> entertain any proposals that embody them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Milton Mueller
>
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/62134761/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Mar  3 16:47:47 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:47:47 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>

 I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue --internalization/
internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen ICANN
> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes IANA
> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>
> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals as
> something worth considering.


This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time constraints.


> Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
> merits of either approach.
>

Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have this
discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
the future of Ig.)

Mawaki


>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140303/14fb66ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar  3 19:28:41 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:28:41 -0800
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To:  <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
References:     <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
    <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
    <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
    <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0004904a96b637130b83eb2420b75cb1.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>

>  I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
> --internalization/
> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>> ICANN
>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>> IANA
>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>
>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>> as
>> something worth considering.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
> constraints.

I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.

 parminder


>
>
>> Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>> merits of either approach.
>>
>
> Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
> this
> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
> the future of Ig.)
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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 Mar  3 19:34:14 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:34:14 -0800
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To:  <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
References:     <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
    <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
    <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
    <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f51c8185b64521225fe8c98e4e85257b.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>

>  I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
> --internalization/
> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>> ICANN
>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>> IANA
>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>
>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>> as
>> something worth considering.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
> constraints.

I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.

 parminder


>
>
>> Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>> merits of either approach.
>>
>
> Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
> this
> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
> the future of Ig.)
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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 Mar  3 19:36:38 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:36:38 -0800
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To:  <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
References:     <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>
    <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
    <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
    <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>

>  I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
> --internalization/
> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>> ICANN
>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>> IANA
>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>
>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>> as
>> something worth considering.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
> constraints.

I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.

parminder

>
>
>> Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>> merits of either approach.
>>
>
> Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
> this
> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
> the future of Ig.)
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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 Mar  3 20:30:02 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:00:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <CALLeeatFQ4_xBCJ-YpEieXcTiw6_=0mBk=fBoCmq2Z_GNyX0Fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D9B6B79D-27CE-45C4-BE1E-75D799A89602@hserus.net> <CALLeeatFQ4_xBCJ-YpEieXcTiw6_=0mBk=fBoCmq2Z_GNyX0Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8439929E-EFF6-4B7D-9A61-70EBC5B88C44@hserus.net>

You are welcome to come up with an alternate technical proposal to ensure root zome consistency.  I doubt that the operators of that earn a penny beyond the operating costs so it is interesting when you say it is "big business".

--srs (iPad)

> On 04-Mar-2014, at 1:41, Sonigitu Ekpe <soekpe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Suresh,
>  
> Yes the USA may have the hidden "master root" due to their innovative ideas. So much investment on the Internet by the USA which is business!
> 
> Sonigitu Ekpe 
> 
> Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179 
>  "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> The root zone file battle is a stalking horse - and an "easy to visualize" stalking horse which can be used to justify to various official's political leadership whatever power struggle takes place to sieze control of ICANN in general.
>> 
>> "The USA has a hidden master root"
>> 
>> "All the root servers are in the global north. The horror".  [anycast instance? what's that?]
>> 
>> ... etc etc.  Easier to whip up support from the broader and more uninformed sections of government / civil society / industry when you take pains to obsess about some such big, static and easy to visualize target.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 03-Mar-2014, at 20:39, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Suresh
>>> 
>>> We are suggesting that whatever political oversight exists has been badly misdirected.
>>> 
>>> There is this obsessive focus on management of the root zone file, which is not and should never be a policy making or political function.  There is too little emphasis on the actual policy making process and the accountability and responsiveness thereof.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We believe that the latter problem (policy making) needs to be detached from the operational and technical maintenance of the root zone. And fixing the policy problems will take a long time – it could involve anything from re-incorporation of ICANN in Geneva to a new international treaty or convention.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> In this proposal, the real detail-devils lie in the governance arrangements among the ccTLDs and gTLD registries. However, before those details can be resolved, one must first agree that we need to create a DNSA. I am sure that if people think a DNSA is a good idea (or at least a better idea than the status quo or various other alternatives) then those details can be worked out.  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
>>> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 9:37 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I am sure you can find broad consensus for this Milton and am glad to +1 it, but there are too many devils in the details here.
>>> 
>>> If you end all political oversight that is a tough sell beyond that power abhors a vacuum. So I am afraid this won't get as much traction as it should.
>>> 
>>> On 3 March 2014 7:33:21 PM Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all:
>>> 
>>> Today IGP released an innovative proposal to resolve the 15-year controversy over the United States government’s special relationship to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The proposal, which involves removing root zone management functions from ICANN and creating an independent and neutral private sector consortium to take them over, will be presented at the Singapore ICANN meeting March 21, and has also been submitted to the “NETMundial” Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23 and 24.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We propose four basic principles to guide the reform of the IANA functions: 1. Keep the IANA function clerical; separate it from policy; 2. Don’t internationalize political oversight: end it; 3. Align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance; 4. De-link globalization of the IANA function from broader ICANN policy process reforms. Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to entertain any proposals that embody them.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Milton Mueller
>>> 
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> 
>>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/74df76c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar  3 20:36:22 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:06:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <0004904a96b637130b83eb2420b75cb1.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com> <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com> <0004904a96b637130b83eb2420b75cb1.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <58211072-09E2-474C-91C7-4A9E8778E27E@hserus.net>

How or where does that become a regulatory relationship?

Amd which of them, ICANN controlled by the roots and registries (note, not registrars) or ICANN taking on iana functions?

--srs (iPad)

On 04-Mar-2014, at 5:58, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:

>>> ICANN
>>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>>> IANA
>>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>> 
>>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>>> as
>>> something worth considering.
>> 
>> 
>> This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
>> constraints.
> 
> I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
> regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
> such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  4 00:49:58 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:19:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba>    <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>    <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>    <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com> <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net>


On the other hand, my organisations and 45 others had suggested a 
Technical Oversight Board which will consist of 2-3 persons from each 
geo- political region, these people being from key technical academic 
institutions, and a method selection/ election from among possible 
candidates from each region could be devised... Plus, one member from 
each region could come from the respective RIR...

This is a much more democratic spread then getting root operators as 
ICANN's overseers (an overwhelming number from the US, and all from 
developed countries) , or even TLD operators, who are mostly from the 
US, apart from the root operator/ TLD owners proposal suffering from the 
problem of those regulated overseeing the regulators....

parminder


On Tuesday 04 March 2014 06:06 AM, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>>   I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
>> --internalization/
>> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>>> ICANN
>>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>>> IANA
>>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>>
>>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>>> as
>>> something worth considering.
>>
>> This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
>> constraints.
> I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
> regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
> such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>>> Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>>> merits of either approach.
>>>
>> Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
>> this
>> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
>> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
>> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
>> the future of Ig.)
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/8b7b1f90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Mar  4 01:21:13 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:51:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com> <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com> <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4D8E73BF-2964-454E-8115-05FB60ED77C5@hserus.net>

How many of the sort of candidates you suggest would be technically qualified to provide adequate oversight?

And when they do have that technical qualification - there's a high enough chance that they'll very likely be ccTLD operators.  [Who vary in quality too].

--srs (iPad)

> On 04-Mar-2014, at 11:19, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On the other hand, my organisations and 45 others had suggested a Technical Oversight Board which will consist of 2-3 persons from each geo- political region, these people being from key technical academic institutions, and a method selection/ election from among possible candidates from each region could be devised... Plus, one member from each region could come from the respective RIR...
> 
> This is a much more democratic spread then getting root operators as ICANN's overseers (an overwhelming number from the US, and all from developed countries) , or even TLD operators, who are mostly from the US, apart from the root operator/ TLD owners proposal suffering from the problem of those regulated overseeing the regulators....
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
>> On Tuesday 04 March 2014 06:06 AM, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>>>  I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
>>> --internalization/
>>> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>>>> ICANN
>>>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>>>> IANA
>>>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>>>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>>> 
>>>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>>>> as
>>>> something worth considering.
>>> 
>>> This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
>>> constraints.
>> I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
>> regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
>> such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>>>> merits of either approach.
>>>> 
>>> Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
>>> this
>>> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
>>> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
>>> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
>>> the future of Ig.)
>>> 
>>> Mawaki
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/82ac00bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Mar  4 02:20:06 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:50:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your chance to tell governments how the Internet
 should be run
In-Reply-To: <1811915b93740665fec761e71824784766c.20140304064949@mail173.us4.mcsv.net>
References: <1811915b93740665fec761e71824784766c.20140304064949@mail173.us4.mcsv.net>
Message-ID: <CAArzuou2KSJd-zyBCWRNZe6AVAKo6dZS7a4WB4Wsz1ihAx+fMw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *.Nxt* <info at dot-nxt.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Subject: Your chance to tell governments how the Internet should be run
To: Suresh <ops.lists at gmail.com>


         /1net is crowdsourcing its statement to the NetMundial
conference    View
this email in your
browser<http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1811915b93740665fec761e71&id=09b794b88f&e=824784766c>
                      Have
your say today On an important Internet governance submission

If you are interested in how the Internet is run, you are probably aware
that a critical meeting of the world's governments will be taking place in
Brazil in April, called NetMundial.

Submissions to that meeting will be received until the end of this week and
a key one will be from the so-called '/1net' initiative. Earlier today,
/1net published its draft statement in the form of an online survey and
encouraged everyone in the Internet community to provide their thoughts.

Sadly, the deadline is extremely short - you only have today to respond -
but the two-page survey is simple and should take five minutes or less to
fill in.

So if you want to add your voice to those that are calling for, among other
things, limits on online surveillance, a globalization of the Internet's
infrastructure and an assurance that future decisions about the Internet
are made by everyone and not just governments, then you can fill in the
survey online<http://dot-nxt.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1811915b93740665fec761e71&id=755897a659&e=824784766c>
.

For more information on /1net, go to http://1net.org/. There is also a post
about the statement and survey on its online
forum<http://dot-nxt.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1811915b93740665fec761e71&id=f733901085&e=824784766c>
.
           *Copyright © 2014 .Nxt, All rights reserved.*
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website or at one
of our conferences.

*Our mailing address is:*
.Nxt
426B Cole St
San Francisco, CA 94117









[image: Email Marketing Powered by
MailChimp]<http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=1811915b93740665fec761e71&afl=1>



-- 
--srs (iPad)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/d616bf6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar  4 03:10:38 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:40:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>    <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <53158A7E.1060403@itforchange.net>


On Monday 03 March 2014 08:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> "Unilateral oversight by the US government of CIR management is
>> undemocratic and untenable. It should immediately be replaced by
>> an appropriate alternate mechanism where all people of the world
>> have an equal role"
> While I don't fundamentally disagree with this as a principle,

The proposal to say on what there can be a possible consensus, on this 
principle..
> I don't think it makes any sense to call for the "immediate" replacement of U.S. oversight without having a viable and well thought-out proposal for an alternative.

There have been, only perhaps you have not looked at them... In any 
case, agreeing on a principle clears the way to look at proposals that 
fit that principle (for instance, your proposal to me seem not to fit 
the principle of all people in the world having an equal or equitable role)


>
> There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen ICANN by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes IANA out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>
> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals as something worth considering. Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the merits of either approach.

As mentioned, there are other proposals as well... 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar  4 07:14:39 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:14:39 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Inside the New Arms Race to Control Bandwidth
 on the Battlefield
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trioSTV1qVDnNOm6A3TP66Zcu-0aFFmip+Q270MaEDVGWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <98BBB114-8C41-46F9-ADAE-457A2BC4B5A9@warpspeed.com> <CAKx4trioSTV1qVDnNOm6A3TP66Zcu-0aFFmip+Q270MaEDVGWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <191801cf37a3$5277e5e0$f767b1a0$@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Inside the New Arms Race to Control Bandwidth on the
Battlefield
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>


Inside the New Arms Race to Control Bandwidth on the Battlefield
By BRENDAN I. KOERNER
Feb 18 2014
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/spectrum-warfare/>

An electromagnetic mystery in northern Iraq changed the course of Jesse
Potter's life. A chemical-weapons specialist with the US Army's 10th
Mountain Division, Potter was deployed to Kirkuk in late 2007, right as the
oil-rich city was experiencing a grievous spike in violence. He was already
weary upon his arrival, having recently completed an arduous tour in
Afghanistan, which left him suffering from multiple injuries that would
eventually require surgery. In the rare moments of peace he could find in
Kirkuk, Potter began to contemplate whether it was time to trade in his
uniform for a more tranquil existence back home-perhaps as a schoolteacher.
Of more immediate concern, though, was a technical glitch that was
jeopardizing his platoon: The jammers on the unit's armored vehicles were on
the fritz. Jammers clog specific radio frequencies by flooding them with
signals, rendering cell phones, radios, and remote control devices useless.
They were now a crucial weapon in the American arsenal; in Kirkuk, as in the
rest of Iraq, insurgents frequently used cell phones and other wireless
devices to detonate IEDs. But Potter's jammers weren't working. "In the
marketplaces, when we would drive through, there'd still be people able to
talk on their cell phones," he says. "If the jamming systems had been
effective, they shouldn't have been able to do that."

A self-described tech guy at heart, Potter relished the chance to study the
jammers. It turned out that, among other problems, they weren't emitting
powerful enough radio waves along the threat frequencies-those that carried
much of the city's mobile traffic. Once the necessary tweaks were made,
Potter was elated to witness the immediate, lifesaving results on the
streets of Kirkuk, where several of his friends had been maimed or killed.
"To see an IED detonate safely behind our convoy-that was a win for me," he
says. It was so thrilling, in fact, that when Potter returned from Iraq in
2008, he dedicated himself to becoming one of the Army's first new
specialists in spectrum warfare-the means by which a military seizes and
controls the electromagnetic radiation that makes all wireless communication
possible.

It is well known that America's military dominates both the air and the sea.
What's less celebrated is that the US has also dominated the spectrum, a
feat that is just as critical to the success of operations. Communications,
navigation, battlefield logistics, precision munitions-all of these depend
on complete and unfettered access to the spectrum, territory that must be
vigilantly defended from enemy combatants. Having command of electromagnetic
waves allows US forces to operate drones from a hemisphere away, guide
cruise missiles inland from the sea, and alert patrols to danger on the road
ahead. Just as important, blocking enemies from using the spectrum is
critical to hindering their ability to cause mayhem, from detonating
roadside bombs to organizing ambushes. As tablet computers and
semiautonomous robots proliferate on battlefields in the years to come,
spectrum dominance will only become more critical. Without clear and
reliable access to the electromagnetic realm, many of America's most
effective weapons simply won't work.

The Pentagon failed to foresee how much the wireless revolution would alter
warfare.

Yet despite the importance of this crucial resource, America's grip on the
spectrum has never been more tenuous. Insurgencies and rogue nations cannot
hope to match our multibillion-dollar expenditures on aircraft carriers and
stealth bombers, but they are increasingly able to afford the devices
necessary to wage spectrum warfare, which are becoming cheaper and more
powerful at the same exponential pace as all electronics. "Now anybody can
go to a store and buy equipment for $10,000 that can mimic our capability,"
says Robert Elder, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who today is a
research professor at George Mason University. Communications jammers are
abundant on global markets or can be assembled from scratch using power
amplifiers and other off-the-shelf components. And GPS spoofers, with the
potential to disrupt everything from navigation to drones, are simple to
construct for anyone with a modicum of engineering expertise.

Stateless actors aren't the only-or even most troubling-challenge to
America's spectrum dominance. The greater an opponent's size and wealth, the
more electromagnetic trouble it can cause. A nation like China, for example,
has the capability to stage elaborate electronic assaults that could result
in nightmare scenarios on the battlefield: radios that abruptly fall silent
in the thick of combat, drones that plummet from the sky, smart bombs that
can't find their targets. The US may very well never engage in a
head-to-head shooting war in the Far East, but the ability to effectively
control the spectrum is already becoming a new type of arms race, one that
is just as volatile as the ICBM race during the Cold War-and one that can
have just as big an impact on global diplomacy.

The American military is scrambling to develop new tools and techniques that
will help it preserve its electromagnetic edge. But that edge continues to
shrink by the day, and very soon our inability to completely control the
spectrum might result in a different kind of war.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>





 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4
308> Modify Your Subscription |
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-
97c5b007&post_id=20140304063603:27F10D06-A391-11E3-A0FB-DD0E0CE2CF84>
Unsubscribe Now 

 <http://www.listbox.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/8c36905b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Mar  4 08:24:07 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:24:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for paper: 2014 IEEE International Workshop on
 Autonomic Cloud Cybersecurity (ACC 2014)
Message-ID: <00a101cf37ad$0511b470$0f351d50$@unimi.it>

 

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]

 

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

The 2014 IEEE International Workshop on Autonomic Cloud Cybersecurity (ACC
2014)

http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/ACC2014 

Part of

the IEEE International Conference on Cloud and Autonomic Computing (CAC
2014)

http://www.autonomic-conference.org 

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

 

===========

Description

===========

 

Cloud computing services offer cost effective, scalable, and reliable
outsourced platforms. 

Cloud adoption is becoming rapidly ubiquitous; therefore, private and
sensitive data is being 

moved into the cloud. This move is introducing new security and privacy
challenges, which should 

be diligently addressed in order to avoid severe security repercussions. The
focus of this workshop 

is to offer a discussion forum about autonomous cybersecurity systems, which
offer viable and 

well-suited solutions for cloud threat prediction, detection, mitigation,
and prevention.

 

The workshop is part of the IEEE International Conference on Cloud and
Autonomic Computing (CAC 2014), 

and is collocated with The 8th IEEE Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing System
Conference and The 14th 

IEEE Peer-to-Peer Computing Conference. We are soliciting original and
unpublished results of ongoing 

research projects, emerging trends, uses cases, and implementation
experiences in autonomous cloud 

cybersecurity systems and solutions. 

 

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

Topics

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

 

The topics covered include, but are not limited to:

- Self-protection techniques of computing systems, networks and
applications.

- Performance evaluation and metrics of self-protection algorithms.

- Metrics to characterize and quantify the cybersecurity algorithms
(confidentiality, integrity, 

  and availability of autonomic systems)

- Anomaly behavior analysis and discovery of autonomic systems and services.

- Data mining, stochastic analysis and prediction of autonomic systems and
applications.

- Datasets and benchmarks to compare and evaluate different self-protection
techniques.

- Autonomic prediction of cyber crime.

- Cloud cryptographic systems.

- Autonomous cyber threat mitigation methods.

- Cloud security protocols.

- Automated cloud security analysis.

- Cloud cybersecurity tools.

 

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

Paper Submission

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

 

Paper submission Papers submitted should be in the form of a two-page
extended abstract. 

Manuscript preparation and style should follow the official IEEE proceedings
format instructions. 

Papers should be submitted using the workshop submission page
(https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=acc2014). 

 

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

Deadlines

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

 

- Paper submission: May 7, 2014

- Author notification: June 12, 2014

- Camera-ready paper: July 3, 2014

- Workshop: September 8, 2014

 

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

Organizing Committee

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

 

General Chair:

- Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

Co-Chairs:

- Anas Salah Eddin, Florida Polytechnic University, USA

- George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK

 

Steering Committee:

- John Howie (Chair), Cloud Security Alliance, USA

- Salim Hariri, University of Arizona, USA

- Bill Buchanan, Edinburgh Napier University, UK

- Mohand-Said Hacid, Université Lyon 1, France

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/63ea91a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar  4 12:29:31 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:29:31 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked
In-Reply-To: <3A990039-38E1-4ED6-875E-5EF508430FFD@warpspeed.com>
References: <3A990039-38E1-4ED6-875E-5EF508430FFD@warpspeed.com>
Message-ID: <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf
Of Dewayne Hendricks
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:53 AM
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked

[Note:  This item comes from friend Tim Pozar.  DLH]

From: Tim Pozar <pozar at lns.com>
Subject: The internet is fucked
Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com>

POLICY & LAW
The internet is fucked
By Nilay Patel
Feb 25 2014
<http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked>

Here’s a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over
the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world’s
computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary
condition of economic and social development, from government and university
labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate
souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome.

And we’re fucking everything up.

Massive companies like AT&T and Comcast have spent the first two months of
2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the internet through
additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer brutal size — all while the
legal rules designed to protect against these kinds of abuses were struck
down in court for basically making too much sense. “Broadband providers
represent a threat to internet openness,” concluded Judge David Tatel in
Verizon’s case against the FCC’s Open Internet order, adding that the FCC
had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing their market power
and had made “a rational connection between the facts found and the choices
made.” Verizon argued strenuously, but had offered the court “no persuasive
reason to question that judgement.”

Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making “a rather half-hearted
argument” in support of its authority to properly police these threats and
vacated the rules protecting the open internet, surprising observers on both
sides of the industry and sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a
tailspin of empty promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone.

“I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld,” National Cable and
Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell told me
after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC under George W.
Bush; he issued the first no-blocking rules. “Judge Tatel basically said the
Commission didn’t argue it properly.”

In the meantime, the companies that control the internet have continued down
a dark path, free of any oversight or meaningful competition to check their
behavior. In January, AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” plan that would
dramatically alter the fierce one-click-away competition that’s thus far
characterized the internet. Earlier this month, Comcast announced plans to
merge with Time Warner Cable, creating an internet service behemoth that
will serve 40 percent of Americans in 19 of the 20 biggest markets with
virtually no rivals.

And after months of declining Netflix performance on Comcast’s network, the
two companies announced a new “paid peering” arrangement on Sunday, which
will see Netflix pay Comcast for better access to its customers, a
capitulation Netflix has been trying to avoid for years. Paid peering
arrangements are common among the network companies that connect the
backbones of the internet, but consumer companies like Netflix have
traditionally remained out of the fray — and since there’s no oversight or
transparency into the terms of the deal, it’s impossible to know what kind
of precedent it sets. Broadband industry insiders insist loudly that the
deal is just business as usual, while outside observers are full of concerns
about the loss of competition and the increasing power of consolidated
network companies. Either way, it’s clear that Netflix has decided to take
matters — and costs — into its own hands, instead of relying on rational
policy to create an effective and fair marketplace.

In a perfect storm of corporate greed and broken government, the internet
has gone from vibrant center of the new economy to burgeoning tool of
economic control. Where America once had Rockefeller and Carnegie, it now
has Comcast’s Brian Roberts, AT&T’s Randall Stephenson, and Verizon’s Lowell
McAdam, robber barons for a new age of infrastructure monopoly built on
fiber optics and kitty GIFs.

And the power of the new network-industrial complex is immense and
unchecked, even by other giants: AT&T blocked Apple’s FaceTime and Google’s
Hangouts video chat services for the preposterously silly reason that the
apps were "preloaded" on each company’s phones instead of downloaded from an
app store. Verizon and AT&T have each blocked the Google Wallet mobile
payment system because they’re partners in the competing (and not very good)
ISIS service. Comcast customers who stream video on their Xboxes using
Microsoft’s services get charged against their data caps, but the Comcast
service is tax-free.

We’re really, really fucking this up.

But we can fix it, I swear. We just have to start telling each other the
truth. Not the doublespeak bullshit of regulators and lobbyists, but the
actual truth. Once we have the truth, we have the power — the power to
demand better not only from our government, but from the companies that
serve us as well. "This is a political fight," says Craig Aaron, president
of the advocacy group Free Press. "When the internet speaks with a unified
voice politicians rip their hair out."

We can do it. Let’s start.

THE INTERNET IS A UTILITY, JUST LIKE WATER AND ELECTRICITY

Go ahead, say it out loud. The internet is a utility.

There, you’ve just skipped past a quarter century of regulatory corruption
and lawsuits that still rage to this day and arrived directly at the obvious
conclusion. Internet access isn’t a luxury or a choice if you live and
participate in the modern economy, it’s a requirement. Have you ever been in
an office when the internet goes down? It’s like recess. My friend Paul
Miller lived without the internet for a year and I’m still not entirely sure
he’s recovered from the experience. The internet isn’t an adjunct to real
life; it’s not another place. You don’t do things "on the internet," you
just do things. The network is interwoven into every moment of our lives,
and we should treat it that way.

"COMMON CARRIER RULES ARE BASICALLY FREE SPEECH."
Yet the corporations that control internet access insist that they’re
providing specialized services that are somehow different than water, power,
and telephones. They point to crazy bullshit you don’t want or need like
free email addresses and web hosting solutions and goofy personalized search
screens as evidence that they’re actually providing "information" services
instead of the more highly regulated "telecommunications" services. "Common
carrier rules are basically free speech," says the Free Press’ Aaron. "We
have all these protections for what happens over landline phones that we’re
not extending to data, even though all these people under 25 mostly
communicate in data."

It’s time to just end these stupid legal word games and say what we all
already know: internet access is a utility. A commodity that should get
better and faster and cheaper over time. Anyone who says otherwise is lying
for money.

THERE IS ZERO COMPETITION FOR INTERNET ACCESS

None. Zero. Nothing. It is a wasteland. You are standing in the desert and
the only thing that grows is higher prices.

70 percent of American households have but one or two choices for high-speed
internet access: cable broadband from a cable provider or DSL from a
telephone provider. And since DSL isn’t nearly as fast as cable, and the
cable companies are aggressive in bundling TV and internet packages
together, it’s really only one choice. And that means the level of
innovation from these providers has almost completely stagnated, even as
prices have gone up.

Why are cellphones so much cooler now than they were in 2000? Because Apple
and Google and Samsung all had to fight it out and make better products in
order to survive. They’re competing. Comcast hasn’t had to fight anything,
at any time. It is fat and lazy and wants nothing more than to get fatter
and lazier. That’s why Comcast is spending $45 billion on Time Warner Cable
instead of integrating Netflix into its cable boxes and working with Apple
and Google and Microsoft on the real next generation of TV: when you’re the
only real choice in 19 of America’s 20 biggest markets, you get to move real
slow and still make a lot of money. It's not clear Comcast even knows what
real competition looks like.

"Unless the FCC thinks that there is a realistic chance that the deal will
reverse two decades of rising prices, it should stop the merger," writes
Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu. "Passing on savings has never been
part of Comcast’s business model." Monopolies are nice like that.

Despite the innovation in phones, the same is true for mobile internet.
There are only four major national carriers, most of whom run incompatible
networks and all of which are stronger in various regions. If you hate your
Sprint or Verizon service, switching to AT&T or T-Mobile is anything but
simple and probably requires paying off a two-year contact of some kind.
(Even T-Mobile, which is aggressively eliminating contracts for service,
maintains a number of device payment plans that require a contract.) Chances
are once you’ve chosen a wired broadband carrier and a wireless carrier that
works well in your area, you’re stuck: there are few other places to go, and
even if you have choices the high costs of switching mean you’re not very
likely to leave at all.

(And if anyone tries to tell you that ultra-expensive mobile broadband is
somehow competitive with wired service, ask that person to buy you a nice
dinner and tell you the story of when they realized dignity had a price.
You’re talking to a cable industry lobbyist; they can afford it.)

What happens in countries where there’s real competition? In the UK, where
incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors to use its wired
broadband network, home internet service prices are as low as £2.50 a month,
or just over $4. In South Korea, where wireless giants SK Telecom and LG
Uplus are locked in a fierce technology battle, customers have access to the
fastest mobile networks in the world — up to 300Mbps, compared to a
theoretical max of 80Mbps on Verizon that’s actually more like 15 or 20mbps
in the real world.

AMERICANS PAY MORE FOR SLOWER SPEEDS THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD And
Americans pay more for these slower wireless speeds than anyone else in the
world: in Germany, where customers can freely switch between carriers by
swapping SIM cards, T-Mobile customers pay just $1.18 per Mbps of speed. In
the US, our mostly incompatible wireless networks lock customers in with
expensive handsets they can’t take elsewhere, allowing AT&T and Verizon to
charge around $4 per Mbps each and Sprint to clock in at an insane $7.50.

American politicians love to stand on the edges of important problems by
insisting that the market will find a solution. And that’s mostly right; we
don’t need the government meddling in places where smart companies can
create their own answers. But you can’t depend on the market to do anything
when the market doesn’t exist. "We can either have competition, which would
solve a lot of these problems, or we can have regulation," says Aaron. "What
Comcast is trying is to have neither." It’s insanity, and we keep lying to
ourselves about it. It’s time to start thinking about ways to actually do
something.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>

 


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

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Mar  4 12:46:22 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:46:22 -0800
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5316116E.2040303@cis-india.org>

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> [2014-03-03 7:09:13]:
> In this proposal, the real detail-devils lie in the governance arrangements among the ccTLDs and gTLD registries. However, before those details can be resolved, one must first agree that we need to create a DNSA. I am sure that if people think a DNSA is a good idea (or at least a better idea than the status quo or various other alternatives) then those details can be worked out.

Could you spell out the reasoning behind proposing a new DNSA rather 
than vesting this power in the IAB or some such existing body?  After 
all, a new body means a new mechanism of picking the people who are part 
of that body, etc.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/52ae5dca/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Mar  4 14:10:20 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:10:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-MoP55m_F06iDxBUAPP01KLRjLRFuZfQq+WuCW06OcgA@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

How would you address the challenge of democratic (assuming you agree that
this is or may be applicable here) and equitable representation across
world regions within the framework or under the fundamental principle of
the solution you and Brenden are proposing in that paper?

>From my experience, there is no denying that minorities are or feel even
more isolated in a setting when the elements that define the delineation
between (a large) majority and (a small) minority prominently albeit
silently or de facto include culture.

Mawaki



On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:49 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On the other hand, my organisations and 45 others had suggested a
> Technical Oversight Board which will consist of 2-3 persons from each geo-
> political region, these people being from key technical academic
> institutions, and a method selection/ election from among possible
> candidates from each region could be devised... Plus, one member from each
> region could come from the respective RIR...
>
> This is a much more democratic spread then getting root operators as
> ICANN's overseers (an overwhelming number from the US, and all from
> developed countries) , or even TLD operators, who are mostly from the US,
> apart from the root operator/ TLD owners proposal suffering from the
> problem of those regulated overseeing the regulators....
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 04 March 2014 06:06 AM, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>
>   I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
> --internalization/
> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>  There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
> ICANN
> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
> IANA
> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>
> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
> as
> something worth considering.
>
>  This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
> constraints.
>
>  I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
> regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
> such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
>
> parminder
>
>
>   Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
> merits of either approach.
>
>
>  Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
> this
> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
> the future of Ig.)
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/cb6d09ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Mar  4 15:00:34 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:00:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement
 at bestbits.net
Message-ID: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>

Dear all,

With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at RightsCon in San Francisco.

The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for endorsement separately, are:

Internet governance principles, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/

These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social media, email or word of mouth.

Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your endorsement on each of the submissions soon.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/6a1ac65e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/6a1ac65e/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Mar  4 15:03:00 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:03:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53163174.40400@wzb.eu>

"Error establishing a database connection"

jeanette

Am 04.03.2014 21:00, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.
>   These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>
>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read
> the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with
> them, of course), and then to spread the word through social media,
> email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  4 15:20:20 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:20:20 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53163174.40400@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <53163174.40400@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <7AD7AC6852E64A71BB72973D903871A0@Toshiba>

works for me

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:03 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched 
for endorsement at bestbits.net

"Error establishing a database connection"

jeanette

Am 04.03.2014 21:00, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.
>   These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>
>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read
> the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with
> them, of course), and then to spread the word through social media,
> email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>







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

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

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


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

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

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

From exigencygh at gmail.com  Tue Mar  4 17:36:05 2014
From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:36:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <7AD7AC6852E64A71BB72973D903871A0@Toshiba>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53163174.40400@wzb.eu>
	<7AD7AC6852E64A71BB72973D903871A0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHtdyB_Zu90oyf-P8K_dx4P2zeRqof_L6w8X7_zS=e5h07M1xg@mail.gmail.com>

Duly acknownledged.


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> works for me
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:03 AM
> To: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
> for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
> "Error establishing a database connection"
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 04.03.2014 21:00, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now
>> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.
>>   These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the
>> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face
>> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of
>> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at
>> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>>
>> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for
>> endorsement separately, are:
>>
>>  1. Internet governance principles,
>>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>>     Ecosystem - institutional mechanisms,
>>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>>     Ecosystem - ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>>
>>
>> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but
>> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of
>> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read
>> the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with
>> them, of course), and then to spread the word through social media,
>> email or word of mouth.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your
>> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>> '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
>> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Simon Ontoyin
Director, Exigency Ghana Limited
Email: exigencygh at gmail.com
Tel:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140304/51952117/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Tue Mar  4 19:28:14 2014
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:28:14 +0700
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-MoP55m_F06iDxBUAPP01KLRjLRFuZfQq+WuCW06OcgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com> <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com> <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-MoP55m_F06iDxBUAPP01KLRjLRFuZfQq+WuCW06OcgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53166F9E.5070301@gmx.net>

+1

..."democratic and equitable representation across world regions"...

Norbert Klein
in Cambodia



On 3/5/2014 2:10 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Milton,
>
> How would you address the challenge of democratic (assuming you agree 
> that this is or may be applicable here) and equitable representation 
> across world regions within the framework or under the fundamental 
> principle of the solution you and Brenden are proposing in that paper?
>
> From my experience, there is no denying that minorities are or feel 
> even more isolated in a setting when the elements that define the 
> delineation between (a large) majority and (a small) minority 
> prominently albeit silently or de facto include culture.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:49 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     On the other hand, my organisations and 45 others had suggested a
>     Technical Oversight Board which will consist of 2-3 persons from
>     each geo- political region, these people being from key technical
>     academic institutions, and a method selection/ election from among
>     possible candidates from each region could be devised... Plus, one
>     member from each region could come from the respective RIR...
>
>     This is a much more democratic spread then getting root operators
>     as ICANN's overseers (an overwhelming number from the US, and all
>     from developed countries) , or even TLD operators, who are mostly
>     from the US, apart from the root operator/ TLD owners proposal
>     suffering from the problem of those regulated overseeing the
>     regulators....
>
>     parminder
>
>
>
>     On Tuesday 04 March 2014 06:06 AM, parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>       I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
>>>     --internalization/
>>>     internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>>>
>>>     On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>  <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>     There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>>>>     ICANN
>>>>     by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>>>>     IANA
>>>>     out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>>>>     world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>>>
>>>>     At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>>>>     as
>>>>     something worth considering.
>>>     This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
>>>     constraints.
>>     I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
>>     regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
>>     such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>>>     Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>>>>     merits of either approach.
>>>>
>>>     Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
>>>     this
>>>     discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
>>>     proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
>>>     Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
>>>     the future of Ig.)
>>>
>>>     Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>           governance at lists.igcaucus.org  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>           http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>           http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>           http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>>     Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/685de739/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Mar  4 21:09:37 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:39:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked
In-Reply-To: <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>
References: <3A990039-38E1-4ED6-875E-5EF508430FFD@warpspeed.com> <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3C995B9B-388B-4A7E-B5FC-2494FAD9B547@hserus.net>

To use the language of the article, there is even more bullshit in it than the bullshit on the other side it seeks to call out.  

--srs (iPad)

> On 04-Mar-2014, at 22:59, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf
> Of Dewayne Hendricks
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:53 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked
> 
> [Note:  This item comes from friend Tim Pozar.  DLH]
> 
> From: Tim Pozar <pozar at lns.com>
> Subject: The internet is fucked
> Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST
> To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com>
> 
> POLICY & LAW
> The internet is fucked
> By Nilay Patel
> Feb 25 2014
> <http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked>
> 
> Here’s a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over
> the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world’s
> computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary
> condition of economic and social development, from government and university
> labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate
> souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome.
> 
> And we’re fucking everything up.
> 
> Massive companies like AT&T and Comcast have spent the first two months of
> 2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the internet through
> additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer brutal size — all while the
> legal rules designed to protect against these kinds of abuses were struck
> down in court for basically making too much sense. “Broadband providers
> represent a threat to internet openness,” concluded Judge David Tatel in
> Verizon’s case against the FCC’s Open Internet order, adding that the FCC
> had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing their market power
> and had made “a rational connection between the facts found and the choices
> made.” Verizon argued strenuously, but had offered the court “no persuasive
> reason to question that judgement.”
> 
> Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making “a rather half-hearted
> argument” in support of its authority to properly police these threats and
> vacated the rules protecting the open internet, surprising observers on both
> sides of the industry and sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a
> tailspin of empty promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone.
> 
> “I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld,” National Cable and
> Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell told me
> after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC under George W.
> Bush; he issued the first no-blocking rules. “Judge Tatel basically said the
> Commission didn’t argue it properly.”
> 
> In the meantime, the companies that control the internet have continued down
> a dark path, free of any oversight or meaningful competition to check their
> behavior. In January, AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” plan that would
> dramatically alter the fierce one-click-away competition that’s thus far
> characterized the internet. Earlier this month, Comcast announced plans to
> merge with Time Warner Cable, creating an internet service behemoth that
> will serve 40 percent of Americans in 19 of the 20 biggest markets with
> virtually no rivals.
> 
> And after months of declining Netflix performance on Comcast’s network, the
> two companies announced a new “paid peering” arrangement on Sunday, which
> will see Netflix pay Comcast for better access to its customers, a
> capitulation Netflix has been trying to avoid for years. Paid peering
> arrangements are common among the network companies that connect the
> backbones of the internet, but consumer companies like Netflix have
> traditionally remained out of the fray — and since there’s no oversight or
> transparency into the terms of the deal, it’s impossible to know what kind
> of precedent it sets. Broadband industry insiders insist loudly that the
> deal is just business as usual, while outside observers are full of concerns
> about the loss of competition and the increasing power of consolidated
> network companies. Either way, it’s clear that Netflix has decided to take
> matters — and costs — into its own hands, instead of relying on rational
> policy to create an effective and fair marketplace.
> 
> In a perfect storm of corporate greed and broken government, the internet
> has gone from vibrant center of the new economy to burgeoning tool of
> economic control. Where America once had Rockefeller and Carnegie, it now
> has Comcast’s Brian Roberts, AT&T’s Randall Stephenson, and Verizon’s Lowell
> McAdam, robber barons for a new age of infrastructure monopoly built on
> fiber optics and kitty GIFs.
> 
> And the power of the new network-industrial complex is immense and
> unchecked, even by other giants: AT&T blocked Apple’s FaceTime and Google’s
> Hangouts video chat services for the preposterously silly reason that the
> apps were "preloaded" on each company’s phones instead of downloaded from an
> app store. Verizon and AT&T have each blocked the Google Wallet mobile
> payment system because they’re partners in the competing (and not very good)
> ISIS service. Comcast customers who stream video on their Xboxes using
> Microsoft’s services get charged against their data caps, but the Comcast
> service is tax-free.
> 
> We’re really, really fucking this up.
> 
> But we can fix it, I swear. We just have to start telling each other the
> truth. Not the doublespeak bullshit of regulators and lobbyists, but the
> actual truth. Once we have the truth, we have the power — the power to
> demand better not only from our government, but from the companies that
> serve us as well. "This is a political fight," says Craig Aaron, president
> of the advocacy group Free Press. "When the internet speaks with a unified
> voice politicians rip their hair out."
> 
> We can do it. Let’s start.
> 
> THE INTERNET IS A UTILITY, JUST LIKE WATER AND ELECTRICITY
> 
> Go ahead, say it out loud. The internet is a utility.
> 
> There, you’ve just skipped past a quarter century of regulatory corruption
> and lawsuits that still rage to this day and arrived directly at the obvious
> conclusion. Internet access isn’t a luxury or a choice if you live and
> participate in the modern economy, it’s a requirement. Have you ever been in
> an office when the internet goes down? It’s like recess. My friend Paul
> Miller lived without the internet for a year and I’m still not entirely sure
> he’s recovered from the experience. The internet isn’t an adjunct to real
> life; it’s not another place. You don’t do things "on the internet," you
> just do things. The network is interwoven into every moment of our lives,
> and we should treat it that way.
> 
> "COMMON CARRIER RULES ARE BASICALLY FREE SPEECH."
> Yet the corporations that control internet access insist that they’re
> providing specialized services that are somehow different than water, power,
> and telephones. They point to crazy bullshit you don’t want or need like
> free email addresses and web hosting solutions and goofy personalized search
> screens as evidence that they’re actually providing "information" services
> instead of the more highly regulated "telecommunications" services. "Common
> carrier rules are basically free speech," says the Free Press’ Aaron. "We
> have all these protections for what happens over landline phones that we’re
> not extending to data, even though all these people under 25 mostly
> communicate in data."
> 
> It’s time to just end these stupid legal word games and say what we all
> already know: internet access is a utility. A commodity that should get
> better and faster and cheaper over time. Anyone who says otherwise is lying
> for money.
> 
> THERE IS ZERO COMPETITION FOR INTERNET ACCESS
> 
> None. Zero. Nothing. It is a wasteland. You are standing in the desert and
> the only thing that grows is higher prices.
> 
> 70 percent of American households have but one or two choices for high-speed
> internet access: cable broadband from a cable provider or DSL from a
> telephone provider. And since DSL isn’t nearly as fast as cable, and the
> cable companies are aggressive in bundling TV and internet packages
> together, it’s really only one choice. And that means the level of
> innovation from these providers has almost completely stagnated, even as
> prices have gone up.
> 
> Why are cellphones so much cooler now than they were in 2000? Because Apple
> and Google and Samsung all had to fight it out and make better products in
> order to survive. They’re competing. Comcast hasn’t had to fight anything,
> at any time. It is fat and lazy and wants nothing more than to get fatter
> and lazier. That’s why Comcast is spending $45 billion on Time Warner Cable
> instead of integrating Netflix into its cable boxes and working with Apple
> and Google and Microsoft on the real next generation of TV: when you’re the
> only real choice in 19 of America’s 20 biggest markets, you get to move real
> slow and still make a lot of money. It's not clear Comcast even knows what
> real competition looks like.
> 
> "Unless the FCC thinks that there is a realistic chance that the deal will
> reverse two decades of rising prices, it should stop the merger," writes
> Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu. "Passing on savings has never been
> part of Comcast’s business model." Monopolies are nice like that.
> 
> Despite the innovation in phones, the same is true for mobile internet.
> There are only four major national carriers, most of whom run incompatible
> networks and all of which are stronger in various regions. If you hate your
> Sprint or Verizon service, switching to AT&T or T-Mobile is anything but
> simple and probably requires paying off a two-year contact of some kind.
> (Even T-Mobile, which is aggressively eliminating contracts for service,
> maintains a number of device payment plans that require a contract.) Chances
> are once you’ve chosen a wired broadband carrier and a wireless carrier that
> works well in your area, you’re stuck: there are few other places to go, and
> even if you have choices the high costs of switching mean you’re not very
> likely to leave at all.
> 
> (And if anyone tries to tell you that ultra-expensive mobile broadband is
> somehow competitive with wired service, ask that person to buy you a nice
> dinner and tell you the story of when they realized dignity had a price.
> You’re talking to a cable industry lobbyist; they can afford it.)
> 
> What happens in countries where there’s real competition? In the UK, where
> incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors to use its wired
> broadband network, home internet service prices are as low as £2.50 a month,
> or just over $4. In South Korea, where wireless giants SK Telecom and LG
> Uplus are locked in a fierce technology battle, customers have access to the
> fastest mobile networks in the world — up to 300Mbps, compared to a
> theoretical max of 80Mbps on Verizon that’s actually more like 15 or 20mbps
> in the real world.
> 
> AMERICANS PAY MORE FOR SLOWER SPEEDS THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD And
> Americans pay more for these slower wireless speeds than anyone else in the
> world: in Germany, where customers can freely switch between carriers by
> swapping SIM cards, T-Mobile customers pay just $1.18 per Mbps of speed. In
> the US, our mostly incompatible wireless networks lock customers in with
> expensive handsets they can’t take elsewhere, allowing AT&T and Verizon to
> charge around $4 per Mbps each and Sprint to clock in at an insane $7.50.
> 
> American politicians love to stand on the edges of important problems by
> insisting that the market will find a solution. And that’s mostly right; we
> don’t need the government meddling in places where smart companies can
> create their own answers. But you can’t depend on the market to do anything
> when the market doesn’t exist. "We can either have competition, which would
> solve a lot of these problems, or we can have regulation," says Aaron. "What
> Comcast is trying is to have neither." It’s insanity, and we keep lying to
> ourselves about it. It’s time to start thinking about ways to actually do
> something.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Mar  4 21:12:05 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:42:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <5316116E.2040303@cis-india.org>
References: <090da74b38a64443af6a8304a7a9a772@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <144886089c0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <3f647881c49b431faefe4f9a700cc377@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5316116E.2040303@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <3207A5FA-291A-40FC-8EC9-C84664F99188@hserus.net>

That too would be a very good question, unless it is that some consider them tainted as being part of "the establishment" .. Which would be a very wrong thing to believe.

--srs (iPad)

> On 04-Mar-2014, at 23:16, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> [2014-03-03 7:09:13]:
>> In this proposal, the real detail-devils lie in the governance arrangements among the ccTLDs and gTLD registries. However, before those details can be resolved, one must first agree that we need to create a DNSA. I am sure that if people think a DNSA is a good idea (or at least a better idea than the status quo or various other alternatives) then those details can be worked out.
> 
> Could you spell out the reasoning behind proposing a new DNSA rather than vesting this power in the IAB or some such existing body?  After all, a new body means a new mechanism of picking the people who are part of that body, etc.
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  5 04:08:37 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:08:37 +0500
Subject: [governance] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
 endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR15p5UxTNwXJT+R5tKrNhzp9ktKR+oph6F0JBYXGwTq=A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy

Sincerely, acknowledged.

Asif Kabani

-------
*Asif Kabani*
Executive Director
*Skype: kabaniasif*
*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>
http://Social.kabani.asia

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani


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




On 5 March 2014 01:00, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.
>  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the Best
> Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face review this
> week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of the
> institutional submission) by those of you who are present at RightsCon in
> San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for endorsement
> separately, are:
>
>
>    1. Internet governance principles,
>    http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>    2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>    Ecosystem - institutional mechanisms,
>    http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>    3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>    Ecosystem - ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>
>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of the
> statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read the
> statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with them, of
> course), and then to spread the word through social media, email or word of
> mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
>   --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/9814f385/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 04:09:55 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:09:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <53166F9E.5070301@gmx.net>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-MoP55m_F06iDxBUAPP01KLRjLRFuZfQq+WuCW06OcgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53166F9E.5070301@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8L-RyPN6rpRjNdt9TncO_f9APVc6O7Q597ibFO6o55Og@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,


[Note: Sorry for duplication. I thought your original post was sent to both
the IGC list and the 1net list and wanted also to reply to both lists but
it was apparently sent only to the latter list. So for IGC I am posting my
comments and questions in this thread as we are here considering your
proposal as a potential reference in possible IGC statement for the
NETmundial. Your quick response to the following as well as to the previous
question (both of which are connected at some point) would be appreciated.
Again, sorry for any confusion.]


Thank you and Brenden for putting together this innovative attempt to
solving the challenges of the evolving institutional field for Internet
governance, and for sharing it. I have two points about your proposal.


First, it is not clear to me how combining the IANA functions (which your
proposal define as clerical) with the Root Zone Maintainer functions (which
I would think are technical, with no more decision making power than the
IANA functions) in a new entity provides that entity with the authority you
seem to be giving it.

Indeed, it sounds like you're proposing to end the _political_ oversight
from USG by replacing it with the industry (DNSA) oversight. You say the
existence of a contract between ICANN and the DNSA provides check and
balance to ICANN and that other entities may even compete to replace ICANN
if that contract were to (as it could) be made renewable every 5 years for
instance, etc. In other words, this contract doesn't seem like a contract
between peer organizations with each just having specific different roles
toward the other, but a contract between a principal and an agent, or in
any case between an entity that has (a higher) authority over the other
since the former can put an end to the raison d'etre of the latter and give
it away to a competitor.


While I understand the incentive-based rationale for the membership of the
DNSA, I fail to see where you make the case for such larger authority as
you attribute to it, again merely by combining the IANA functions with the
Root Zone Maintainer functions. What is the source of the DNSA authority
which makes it competent to exercise an oversight that matches the previous
political oversight (since removing the term "political" from "oversight"
doesn't seem to narrow it to only the clerical and technical roles DNSA is
supposed to carry out in the new governance structure) and competent to
decide to grant or not to grant ICANN its contract?


I think clarifying this will also help resolve the question as to whether
political considerations (in the larger sense of political) need to be
brought to bear in deciding who should be part of the DNSA - which can be a
decisive factor for the success or failure of this proposal.


My second point is much shorter and concerns your reference to a treaty, at
last twice. I don't seem to find anywhere in the text an explanation about
what the purpose of a treaty would be within the framework of this
proposal. Would you mind elaborate on that?


Thanks,


Mawaki



On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

>  +1
>
> ..."democratic and equitable representation across world regions"...
>
> Norbert Klein
> in Cambodia
>
>
>
>
> On 3/5/2014 2:10 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>  How would you address the challenge of democratic (assuming you agree
> that this is or may be applicable here) and equitable representation across
> world regions within the framework or under the fundamental principle of
> the solution you and Brenden are proposing in that paper?
>
>  From my experience, there is no denying that minorities are or feel even
> more isolated in a setting when the elements that define the delineation
> between (a large) majority and (a small) minority prominently albeit
> silently or de facto include culture.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:49 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> On the other hand, my organisations and 45 others had suggested a
>> Technical Oversight Board which will consist of 2-3 persons from each geo-
>> political region, these people being from key technical academic
>> institutions, and a method selection/ election from among possible
>> candidates from each region could be devised... Plus, one member from each
>> region could come from the respective RIR...
>>
>> This is a much more democratic spread then getting root operators as
>> ICANN's overseers (an overwhelming number from the US, and all from
>> developed countries) , or even TLD operators, who are mostly from the US,
>> apart from the root operator/ TLD owners proposal suffering from the
>> problem of those regulated overseeing the regulators....
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 04 March 2014 06:06 AM, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>>
>>   I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
>> --internalization/
>> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>> ICANN
>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>> IANA
>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>
>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>> as
>> something worth considering.
>>
>>  This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
>> constraints.
>>
>>  I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
>> regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
>> such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>  Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>> merits of either approach.
>>
>>
>>  Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
>> this
>> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
>> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
>> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
>> the future of Ig.)
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/accb601d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Mar  5 05:40:07 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:40:07 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked
In-Reply-To: <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>
References: <3A990039-38E1-4ED6-875E-5EF508430FFD@warpspeed.com>
 <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Lefb1mgH8vFTFAez@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>, at 09:29:31 on 
Tue, 4 Mar 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> quoted:

>In the UK, where incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors 
>to use its wired broadband network, home internet service prices are as 
>low as £2.50 a month, or just over $4.

Just to get our facts straight, these sorts of deals are available only 
if you switch your telephone service to the same non-BT provider, and 
pay around £15 per month local loop line rental (whether you wanted a 
voice line or not). With typical voice call bundles added in, it's 
difficult to get a complete package for under £30 per month ($50).

And these prices are for people living in urban areas where there's lots 
of broadband competition (the regulator decides if you live in such an 
area, not the provider). Outside those areas add another typically $10 a 
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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Mar  5 05:50:04 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:20:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked
In-Reply-To: <Lefb1mgH8vFTFAez@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <3A990039-38E1-4ED6-875E-5EF508430FFD@warpspeed.com>
 <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>
 <Lefb1mgH8vFTFAez@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <14491dd3fc0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

It is amazing how reality intrudes into the network neutrality fantasy land :)


On 5 March 2014 4:12:38 PM Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> 
wrote:

> In message <002e01cf37cf$4ef3eb40$ecdbc1c0$@gmail.com>, at 09:29:31 on Tue, 
> 4 Mar 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> quoted:
>
> >In the UK, where incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors to 
> use its wired broadband network, home internet service prices are as low as 
> £2.50 a month, or just over $4.
>
> Just to get our facts straight, these sorts of deals are available only if 
> you switch your telephone service to the same non-BT provider, and pay 
> around £15 per month local loop line rental (whether you wanted a voice 
> line or not). With typical voice call bundles added in, it's difficult to 
> get a complete package for under £30 per month ($50).
>
> And these prices are for people living in urban areas where there's lots of 
> broadband competition (the regulator decides if you live in such an area, 
> not the provider). Outside those areas add another typically $10 a 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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 06:21:57 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:51:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>


Hi Jeremy

For quite some time now, my analysis/prediction about the efforts of 
ICANN plus (and whoever backs them) vis vis the NetMundial has been as 
follows;

1. the main aim was to stop Brazil from the path Its President's speech 
at the UN looked to be paving - that of engaging the global community in 
UN spaces for the needed global Internet governance mechanisms.... That 
aim has been achieved, at least for the time being...

2. To make an alluring offer to Brazil to get them off the track 
mentioned above, which was in terms of some vague promises about some 
real steps forward in terms of internationalisation of ICANN... However 
as NetMundial approaches, we hear less and less of anything concrete in 
this regard. Anyway, since the show was being arranged, it was found 
useful if some good text could be got into the NetMundial outcome docs 
on/*'multistakeholder decision making' including, and specifically, on 
global public policy issues*/. This latter is the primary objective at 
this point. And the mentioned parties have been going about in a 
completely unabashed manner - helped considerably by some unexplained 
high degree of bashfulness of the involved civil society. We saw 1 Net 
being formed from nowhere (sorry, now we know, from an ICANN board 
decision), it taking over the meeting's co-ownership, various 
shenanigans around selection of its steering committee (which in any 
case is constantly bypassed, and never seems to converse with the 
respective constituencies), imposition of a person with highly 
questionable standing and reputation as civil society leader of the 
meeting (about which Ian again recommends further bashful for civil 
society) , and now a sudden survey which will formulate the 1Net aka 
'global internet community' view on Internet principles for submission 
to the netMundial..... and so on.... Believe me, you havent seen nothing 
yet. Wait for the days close to the meeting....

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has 
this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet 
governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable 
access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making 
process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission 
to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  
- which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
/*
*//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder 
participation"*/ and whether it is different from what is meant in the 
above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are 
you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal 
part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. 
Please address this point specifically.

I hope those proposing this statement will explain this point. I think 
it is their responsibility to do so, instead of slipping in such 
concepts, what would in default be, somewhat surreptitiously, which many 
potential signees are apt to miss..

Thanks

parminder






On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now 
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting. 
>  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the 
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face 
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of 
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at 
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for 
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>
>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but 
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of 
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to 
> read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree 
> with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social 
> media, email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your 
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/a27462c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Wed Mar  5 06:39:33 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:39:33 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
> 
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
> 
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
> 
> Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically. 

Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/21f3ab84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/21f3ab84/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 06:49:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:19:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has 
>> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and 
>> equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>
>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>
>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>> /*
>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder 
>> participation"*/and whether it is different from what is meant in the 
>> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, 
>> are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have 
>> equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public 
>> policies. Please address this point specifically.
>
> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on 
> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it 
> was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder 
> roles should be.


I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken 
on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point 
today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not 
too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to 
NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and 
democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human 
rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant 
national legislation complies with their obligations under international 
law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions 
both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. 
Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and 
notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at 
community level. The private sector and particularly the technical 
community significantly influence and encourage the development, 
distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to 
do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and 
democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders 
involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder




>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/7010dd1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Wed Mar  5 07:21:17 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:21:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.

> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
> 
> ...
> 
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/a4eef501/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/a4eef501/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 07:29:32 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:59:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf 
>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>
>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>
>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>> /*
>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from 
>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, 
>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, 
>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in 
>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point 
>>> specifically.
>>
>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on 
>> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times 
>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder 
>> roles should be.
>
>
> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 


It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS 
contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder 
governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present 
submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come 
from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as 
somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and 
G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically 
speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not 
figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to 
democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society 
actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this 
doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" 
you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, 
accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder participation */" 
(emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 
'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone 
and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know 
which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get 
caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of 
the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic 
world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a 
good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the 
powerful warriors of the neolib order.

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting 
introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches 
what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US 
supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from 
NetMundial...... All of piece.

parminder


> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
> to NetMundial
>
> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate 
> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical 
> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to 
> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and 
> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and 
> particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the 
> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to 
> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, 
> access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a 
> knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/feb75815/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 07:42:04 2014
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:42:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for IGF 2014 Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAC0JwGP8DgxiV=QROdwzQpG1jE7xvhU5hEaE1toUwD3oUnJHFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC0JwGP8DgxiV=QROdwzQpG1jE7xvhU5hEaE1toUwD3oUnJHFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC0JwGML9W6x++rvXJK3uVtfC62YYXUhFNhQO0VqQmDQrCzniw@mail.gmail.com>

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Not sure if this has been posted on the various  lists due to high volume
of NetMundial traffic yet, but here it is from the IGF website. Note the
hard and fast deadline.

"IGF 2014

The Ninth Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-5
September 2014.

[NEW] Call for Workshop Proposals

The IGF Secretariat is issuing a call for workshop proposals for the 2014
Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. Interested workshop
organizers are kindly asked to submit workshop proposals through the online
form that will be available on the IGF website from 25 March 2014. The
deadline for submission is 15 April 2014. Please note that there can be no
extension of the deadline.  Before submission, they are kindly asked to
read the Workshop submission guidelines before submission.  A template of
the online proposal form is available."

------
Rgds,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/fb0b59fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 07:45:11 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:15:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53171C57.4060509@itforchange.net>




On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
>> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.

I am ready to sign off on this language, by adding some things like, 
social justice claims also in govs basket (very often, and easily, 
forgotten). Can I propose it for adoption by BB and IGC..... Now, if 
there are others who dont agree to the above - and of course there are 
such people whereby Jeremy had to defer - would they please explain 
their position. For the sake of transparency and accountability, and of 
course, if democracy means anything, for promoting deliberative democracy.

And again, I never spoke of the whole range of issues and elements that 
governance consists of, and your response is therefore a bit off track..

I asked my question specifically in terms of - /*taking decisions in 
terms of public policies*/... Please answer that part specifically. Now 
lets not begin on, one does not understand what is meant by 'public 
policies'... The whole discipline of political science is based on it, 
all constitutions of the world are relatively clear about this term.

>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.

All the examples you mention can be captured in some concepts and theory 
for appropriate democratic governance... Non-fixity is the post modern 
contraption that the powerful have used very well in the global IG 
space.... We can claim non fixity for anything and then not allow any 
norms to be built... Is transparency, to take just one example, a fixed 
norm - I can show you a thousand counter-instances where it cannot be 
made to apply... That way nothing is fixed.... So, then why write any 
principle at all. Making principles is about fixing things somewhat, as 
higher norms which practice uses as guidelines... Tell me one principle 
which has fixed meaning and application... Is equality among all people 
a fixed thing, is 'liberty' .........



parminder
>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/7ccd6f6a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 10:11:57 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:41:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53173EBD.60108@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now 
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting. 
>  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the 
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face 
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of 
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at 
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for 
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem -- institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem -- ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>

The ICANN related submission really takes the cake...

ICANN should stay a US non profit under Californian law, which is 
declared to be the best for this purpose. Great! That is just the 
pronouncement that people were waiting with bated breath for civil 
society to make.

And if limited forays towards developing additional international bases 
-without changing the legal incorporation in the US - has indeed to be 
tried, try Belgium and Switzerland - dont even look at those dangerous 
developing countries. But then of course there is, latter on, also the 
standard, complementary patronising separate section on  doing something 
about those poor developing countries....

And of course the only principle that ICANN should look at is FoE, no 
matter that its new gTLD policy is an instrument for private (mostly US 
based) appropriation of cultural names, idea and heritages from the 
world over... Lets not bother about such small things... Cultural rights 
and such things are old outdated concepts in this brave new world.

As a colleague said offline, this proposal could have been written by 
ICANN.... I disagree only to the extent that in the present 
circumstances even ICANN cant write this stuff - only some 'more royal 
than the king' civil society can.... After all the overt promises that 
were made to the Brazil President, obviously ICANN needs to offer 
something more clear and concrete, lets see...

I am almost shocked that such a submission can be proposed to go in the 
name of global civil society groups.... What must one think of 
developing countries really, to propose this....

BestBits office holders, is there a minimum threshold below which the BB 
platform is not offered for collecting endorsements?

Parminder


>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but 
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of 
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to 
> read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree 
> with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social 
> media, email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your 
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/fc1205d5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From rguerra at privaterra.org  Wed Mar  5 15:58:16 2014
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:58:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_Internet_Governance-espionage_Evolutio?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?n=3A_=E2=80=9CChange_It!=E2=80=9D_Versus_=E2=80=9CGet_Real!?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D?=
Message-ID: <2142498284064952208@unknownmsgid>

Posting this to the governance list. Apologies if you see it cross-posted..


The Internet Governance-espionage Evolution: “Change It!” Versus “Get
Real!” – by Chris Bronk
Posted on March 5,
2014<http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2014/03/the-internet-governance-espionage-evolution-change-it-versus-get-real-by-chris-bronk/>


http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2014/03/the-internet-governance-espionage-evolution-change-it-versus-get-real-by-chris-bronk/

Rare is the day that Edward Snowden’s decision to leave the United States
and provide a massive archive of information regarding US signals
intelligence to a handful of journalists, chiefly Glenn Greenwald, doesn’t
enter my thoughts or conversation. We are at a swinging pendulum point in
which we are left to wonder how much intelligence is needed for security
and how the capacity to collect intelligence from cyberspace might be
abused. That said, I refuse to be surprised and horrified by the reality
that data provided by Facebook’s 1.23 billion users may be swept up in
intelligence collection, by everyone from intelligence agencies to
marketing firms. It’s simply not that hard to do. Nonetheless there is a
debate between two sets of voices that I label “change it” and “get real.”
Let’s consider their points.

Following the Snowden leaks, a “change it” chorus of displeasure emerged
regarding the National Security Agency’s activity, both inside and outside
the United States. Angela Merkel has been a particularly harsh critic of
the NSA’s activities, allegedly declaring to President Obama, “This is like
the Stasi,” after hearing that her personal cell phone was monitored.
Although some decry Merkel for being naïve, she is also the first
chancellor of the reunited Germany to be raised in the former East. As an
ally of the United States, Merkel believes Germany’s leaders to be exempt
from the US surveillance dragnet.

Those upset by the Snowden revelations have formulated a thesis on what
they believe is necessary to address the behavior of the US government and
the NSA. This set of voices retains relevance due to the continuing release
of stories based upon the massive number of documents purloined by Snowden
before his travel to Hong Kong and Moscow.

Most critics of the NSA’s activities ask for them to stop. But beyond that,
there are those who ask whether the way in which the Internet is governed
should be called into question, which is not at all a bad thing, but rather
a possible sign that cyberspace is growing up. For nearly a decade, critics
of the current Internet governance model, managed by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of Marina del Rey
California, have pushed for an alternative governance mechanism. My
colleague Moshe Vardi, editor of the Communications of the Association for
Computing Machinery stated in December, “We can no longer trust the US
government to be the ‘Internet hegemon.’” He may have a point, but not so
argues ICANN.

A member of the ICANN board of directors, George Sadowsky, offered the
following response to the Internet hegemony argument:

Vardi’s repetition of spurious and incorrect claims, often made for
political reasons by other countries, gives credence to ignorance while
illustrating the extent to which a knee-jerk reaction generated by Edward
Snowden’s recent disclosures concerning the National Security Agency’s
surveillance of personal communications worldwide has been unthinkingly
adopted by otherwise presumably sensible individuals.

Sadowsky’s tone, in stating how wrong my otherwise ostensibly sensible
colleague must be, is exactly the sort that reminds me to revisit the
Hegelian Dialectics some consider a useful path to understanding argument.
His refutation of Vardi’s claims is simple—that he is wrong and has fallen
victim to a visceral reaction that is short sighted.

Beyond Internet governance, there remains an important discussion on just
how much intelligence activity should be undertaken by democratic
governments in cyberspace. Nuanced was John Schindler’s initial take on the
Snowden revelations, back in June 2013.

The historical truth, of course, is that states have been performing
espionage as long as there have been anything like states; it’s not called
the Second Oldest Profession for nothing. States have regarded
espionage—running and catching spies, intercepting other states’ messages
while protecting your own—as core state business for millennia, long before
anybody thought states should provide education, pensions, health care, or
even police. Espionage is not going away anytime soon.

This exemplifies an important (and to me, more valid) “get real”
counter-argument. But Schindler also cites NSA whistleblower Bill Binney, a
gifted mathematician who resigned in protest over domestic collection. So
even among this “get real” set, there is still a very real concern over the
potential for overreach and violation of civil liberties in intelligence
activities in cyberspace. The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and
Communications Technologies made important points here.

Some of those items were directly addressed in President Obama’s speech
regarding the intelligence community at the US Department of Justice,
others weren’t. Essentially, the President asserted that he would continue
to collect widely from cyberspace, but promised more oversight. As a leader
preoccupied with the issue of almost any terror event being his potential
political undoing (see Benghazi), there is no room to give up capability,
whatever the privacy and civil liberties concern.

Ultimately, it is upon the citizens of democratic societies whose
governments engage in cyberspace intelligence to push for more oversight
and change. Furthermore, any policy fix is trumped by the reality that it
is most likely the best option to enable more technological innovation in
protection of privacy and liberty on the Internet. There is likely no
satisfying top down fix for the post-Snowden world, but there may well be
many bottom-up efforts that can achieve measurable results.
About Chris Bronk

Chris Bronk is a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute.

Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/55625e7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 18:57:41 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by
Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
(evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the
stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are
some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role
flexibilities".

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain
gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the
highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A
appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better"
by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we
might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:





So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about
public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty
point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.
This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly
agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the
key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse
the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.
I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because
I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general
proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I
personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals
in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at
all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate
that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately
take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a
leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community
may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in
developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance
practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for
the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in
each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if
you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the
appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.





BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/01e87149/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Mar  5 20:50:16 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:20:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F45C1733-F183-433D-87EC-691343C079B1@hserus.net>

People routinely wear multiple hats and fixed stakeholder roles is an old myth.

Multistakeholderism is functionally equivalent to participative democracy, and only demands that people asking for a stake are expected to contribute towards achieving a common set of tasks and goals.

Full on democracy without any mention of multistakeholderism is where everybody has a vote, but where votes get aggregated in the hands of elected representatives, who then exercise their right to function in whatever role they are elected to. 

 Whether it be the co co of this caucus or the president of a country.  No others get to be co co or president, we trust whoever the majority elects to perform their duties responsibly (and of course are, in an informed democracy, proactive in calling out bad decisions, or maybe changing our votes the next time elections come around)

Rather less hands on than multistakeholderism, though .. And quite inappropriate in the context that you want it.

--srs (iPad)

> On 06-Mar-2014, at 5:27, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.
>  
> Have I missed something here?
>  
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.
>  
> M
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>  
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>  
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.
>  
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.
>  
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.
> 
> 
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
> 
> ...
> 
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>  
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>  
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>  
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/88960e7b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From hindenburgo at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 21:54:58 2014
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:54:58 -0300
Subject: [governance] Companies Profiting the Most From War
Message-ID: <CAPM93kUKNfifi8WDA8b=Z-NaPZZfcciOykMMvgZX+1tAbTj+Jw@mail.gmail.com>

*Companies Profiting the Most From War*
Posted on March 5, 2014 6:24 am EST
By Vince Calio and Alexander E.M. Hess
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/03/05/companies-profiting-the-most-from-war/print/


Global military spending was down in 2012 for the first time since 1998.
And for the second year in a row, arms sales from private industry to
governments were down as well.

Despite the decline in military spending, the business of war remains a
good one. The 100 largest arms producers and military services contractors
recorded $395 billion in arms sales in 2012. Lockheed Martin, the largest
arms seller, alone accounted for $36 billion in such sales during 2012.
Based on figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI), 24/7 Wall St. examined the 10 companies profiting most
from war.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is among the
biggest reasons for the drop in military spending, according to SIPRI.
Spending on these campaigns fell from $159 billion to $115 billion between
2011 and 2012.

Austerity also contributed to cuts in military spending. Budget control
measures were responsible for a $15 billion reduction in U.S. military
expenditures in 2012. Belt-tightening in Europe also had an impact on arms
sales. In 20 of the 37 countries in Western and Central Europe, military
spending declined by more than 10% between 2008 and 2012.

In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Dr. Samuel Perlo-Freeman, director of
the SIPRI Programme on Military Expenditure and Arms Production, said that
while government military spending is waning in the United States and
Western Europe, many developing countries are increasing their
expenditures. Arms sellers in several countries, most notably Russia, are
benefiting from their nation’s military budget expansion, Perlo-Freeman
noted. While U.S. military expenses declined in 2012, Russia’s increased by
an estimated 16% that year.

Companies reacted differently to the sales downturn. L-3 Communications
spun off part of its business in 2012 to limit exposure to declining
government military spending. Other government contractors wrote off
significant losses in response to decreased military spending, including
General Dynamics, which took a $2 billion goodwill charge related to
declining opportunities in the defense sector.

Faced with possible tough times, some companies have engaged in corrupt
practices. Last year, the CEO of Italian aerospace and defense firm
Finmeccanica was charged by Italian prosecutors with fraud and corruption
related to the company’s sale of helicopters to the Indian government.
However, according to Perlo-Freeman, this is nothing new. “The arms
industry has always been associated with corruption both in international
arms transfers and sometimes in domestic procurement.”

Arms sales have remained concentrated among the same small number of
companies for more than a decade. The top 10 companies have largely
remained in place because industry consolidation in the 1990s made them
dominant players, even through fluctuations in government military
spending. “These companies tend to have their core competencies in getting
money out of governments,” Perlo-Freeman said.

To identify the 10 companies profiting most from war, 24/7 Wall St.
reviewed the 10 companies with the most arms sales based on SIPRI’s list of
the top 100 arms sellers in 2012. Arms sales, including advisory, planes,
vehicles and weapons, were defined by sales to military customers, as well
as contracts to government militaries. We also considered the company’s
2012 total sales and profits, and the total number of employees at the
company, as well as nation-level military spending, all provided by SIPRI.

These are the companies profiting the most from war.

*10. L-3 Communications*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $10.8 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $13.1 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $782 million
*> 2012 employment:* 51,000

L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LLL) moved down a notch in the
rankings from the previous year. The company’s 2012 arms sales totaled
$10.8 billion, down from $12.5 billion the year before. Still, arms sales
accounted for 82% of L-3′s total 2012 sales. The company has four main
business units: secure communications, electronics systems, platform and
logistical solutions, and national security solutions. In July 2012, L-3
spun off its government services business into a standalone company, called
Engility. With the spinoff, L-3 aimed to limit its exposure to cuts in
government spending on defense contractors.

*9. Finmeccanica*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $12.5 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $22.1 billion
*> 2012 profit:* -$1.0 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 67,408

Ongoing corruption probes may have hurt Italian aerospace and defense giant
Finmeccanica, which posted $12.5 billion in arms sales in 2012, roughly $2
billion less than in 2011. Finmeccanica posted a net loss of $1 billion in
2012, mostly due to a write-down of the value of its U.S. defense
electronics unit, DRS Technologies. Following his February 2013 arrest in
connection with charges of bribery of Indian government officials regarding
a contract for 12 military helicopters, Finmeccanica’s CEO, Giuseppe Orsi,
resigned from the company. The bribery charges have also held up payment
from India for the helicopters, causing the highly indebted company to lose
an important source of cash.

*8. United Technologies*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $13.5 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $62.2 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $5.2 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 218,300

United Technologies Corp.’s (NYSE: UTX) 2012 arms sales increased from the
year before, the only company in the top 10 ranking with a year-over-year
increase in its arms sales. The company recorded $13.5 billion in arms
sales in 2012, up from $11.6 billion in 2011. The company’s total profit
that year was $5.2 billion, third among all arms companies. Its Sikorsky
division, known for the Black Hawk and Seahawk military helicopters,
accounted for $4.5 billion in arms sales that year. Its Pratt & Whitney
division, which produces aircraft engines, accounted for $3.7 billion in
2012 arms sales. The company also sold parts of its Hamilton Sundstrand
subsidiary in July 2012 for $3.5 billion to a venture led by private equity
managers, The Carlyle Group and BC Partners. The sale helped United
Technologies fund its more-than $16 billion purchase of aircraft parts
maker Goodrich to expand further into the commercial aerospace sector.

*7. EADS*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $15.4 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $72.6 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $1.6 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 140,000

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company tried to complete a $45
billion mega-merger with fellow arms company BAE in 2012. While European
leaders nixed the merger because of antitrust laws, the European Union
Institute for Security Studies noted in late 2012 that European austerity
may eventually prompt further industry consolidation in the future. EADS’
total arm sales were $15.4 billion in 2012, down by $1 billion versus the
prior year. Still, it was able to hold onto its seventh-place ranking among
arms dealers. Arms sales accounted for just 21% of its $72.6 billion in
total sales during 2012. To reflect the massive contribution of its Airbus
commercial aircraft business to company revenue, EADS changed its name to
Airbus Group in 2014.

*6. Northrop Grumman*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $19.4 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $25.2 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $2.0 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 68,100

Virginia-based Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE: NOC) specializes in producing
unmanned systems, missile defense radars and critical incident response
systems. In February 2012, the U.S. Navy awarded the company a contract
worth as much as $638 million to provide Navy ships with a networked common
computing environment. In January of that year, the Navy also began using
Northrop’s high-altitude drone to monitor activity in Iran. Last year, the
company was awarded nearly $8.6 billion in such contracts, second-most of
any company in the nation. The company’s arms sales, which totaled more
than $19 billion in 2012, accounted for 77% of its total revenue that year.
The company’s 2012 profit was nearly $2 billion.

*5. General Dynamics*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $20.9 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $31.5 billion
*> 2012 profit:* -$332 million
*> 2012 employment:* 92,200

Like many of its defense-sector competitors, Virginia-based General
Dynamics Corp. (NYSE: GD) felt the sting of the decreased U.S. military
spending. The company, which specializes in aircraft, land and
expeditionary combat vehicles, and shipbuilding, lost $332 million in 2012,
and its arms sales totaled $20.9 billion, down from $23.3 billion the year
before. The loss was due, in large part, to a $2 billion goodwill charge
related to declining business opportunities in the defense sector. In its
most recent year, the company reported a 16.4% drop in sales in its combat
systems group, for which the U.S. Army is major customer.

*4. Raytheon*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $22.5 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $24.4 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $1.9 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 67,800

While Raytheon’s 2012 arm sales of $22.5 billion were slightly lower
compared to 2011, they remained high enough for the company to rank fourth
among arms companies. The company, which traces its history back to 1922,
assisted the United States in multiple wars, as well as the Apollo 11 moon
landing. Raytheon Co. (NYSE: RTN) provides services in a variety of fields,
from air and missile defense to radar and cybersecurity*.* In all, 92% of
the company’s sales came from arms sales in 2012. But while the U.S. has
cut defense spending in recent years, Raytheon has benefited from a surge
in exports to foreign countries, which has helped to offset federal
government belt-tightening.

*3. BAE Systems*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $26.9 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $28.3 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $2.6 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 88,200

BAE Systems is the largest non-U.S. military contractor. It had $26.9
billion in arms sales in 2012, which represented some 95% of the company’s
total sales. However, the British company’s year-over-year arms sales
declined that year from $29.2 billion in 2011. Cuts by England’s Ministry
of Defence have taken a toll on the company. As the U.K.’s largest military
contractor, it received 13.7% of procurement funds spent in 2012 to 2013.
In May 2012, the company announced it would close its Armstrong plant —
which made tanks for the nation in World War I and had been in operation
since 1847 — and cut 330 jobs as a result. BAE’s failed $45 billion merger
with fellow defense contractor EADS in 2012 also hurt prospective sales of
England’s main fighter jet, the British Tornado, for which BAE makes the
parts.

*2. Boeing*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $27.6 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $81.7 billion
*> 2012 profit:* $3.9 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 174,400

Although arms sales accounted for just 34% of Boeing’s revenue in 2012,
Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) was still the world’s second largest military
contractor that year. In all, the company’s total revenue was nearly $82
billion in 2012. The company’s commercial airplane segment accounted for a
large portion of its sales, with $49.1 billion in revenue that year. Boeing
ended 2012 with $3.9 billion in profit and with more than 174,400
employees. Last year, Boeing and union workers in Washington state engaged
in heated negotiations, with Boeing threatening to move jobs away from the
state unless union workers agreed to concessions related to their pension
plan.

*1. Lockheed Martin*
*> Arm sales 2012:* $36 billion
*> Total sales 2012:* $47.2 billion
*> 2012 profit:* 2.7 billion
*> 2012 employment:* 120,000

In 2012, Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT) led the world in arms sales,
even as its arms sales declined slightly from $36.2 billion in 2011 to $36
billion in 2012. Such sales accounted for 95% of the Maryland company’s
total revenue. The company, which employed 120,000 workers as of 2012,
specializes in aerospace, global security and information technology
systems for the military. It is also known for the C-5 Galaxy Class
airplane — the largest air military transport plane in the world. Lockheed
Martin has been the largest recipient of government procurement contracts
and the top-ranked company on the Washington Technology Top 100 for 19
consecutive years. However, this has also left the company exposed to
changes in the federal budget. In October 2012, at the request of President
Obama, the company held off on firing thousands of workers that it
previously warned it would have to lay off due to military spending cuts.

Tags: The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA)
<http://247wallst.com/companies/ba/>, General
Dynamics (NYSE:GD) <http://247wallst.com/companies/gd/>, L-3 Communications
Holdings, I... (NYSE:LLL) <http://247wallst.com/companies/lll/>, Lockheed
Martin Corp (NYSE:LMT) <http://247wallst.com/companies/lmt/>, Northrop
Grumman Corp (NYSE:NOC) <http://247wallst.com/companies/noc/>, Raytheon
Company (NYSE:RTN) <http://247wallst.com/companies/rtn/>, United
Technologies Corp (NYSE:UTX) <http://247wallst.com/companies/utx/>
Posted in Special Report <http://247wallst.com/special-report/> | Comments
Off

24/7 Wall St.<http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/03/05/companies-profiting-the-most-from-war/print/>
is
proudly powered by WordPress <http://wordpress.org/>
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/03/05/companies-profiting-the-most-from-war/
printed
on March 5, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/05eaf6cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 21:57:46 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:57:46 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>

Andrew (and Suresh.

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious
discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over.) the undefined, undescribed,
undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn't get us any closer. 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they
are challenged to get real --well this isn't quite "MSism", it isn't true
MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn't do anyone a service
(except the "wizards" behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism "gets real" it falls apart-either it
doesn't have any operational processes or related significant structures of
accountability so it can't handle even the most insignificant of challenges
without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply
ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most
inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion-the drive towards
convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and
exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.
In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for
political systems that couldn't deal with challenge, divergence, conflict
and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices "or else. 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both
taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are
now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more
complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of
using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the
broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for
effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting
MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against
everything that CS has traditionally stood for-the broadening and deepening
of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of
democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the
developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use
of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power-shifting of power
from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of
those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their
actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I've missed
something but another round of "trust them/us" is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm';
'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make
governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and
accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is
democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your
democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests
represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian
citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net"
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by
Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
(evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the
stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are
some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role
flexibilities".

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain
gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the
highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A
appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better"
by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we
might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:






So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about
public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty
point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.
This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly
agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the
key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse
the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.
I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because
I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general
proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I
personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals
in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at
all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate
that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately
take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a
leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community
may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in
developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance
practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for
the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in
each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if
you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the
appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.






BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/98bb8066/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 23:02:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:02:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>

Ah. the "if I ruled the world" challenge. yes, flattering but ultimately
inconsequential. I don't (thank god) rule the world. So my off the cuff
solutions aren't worth all that much.

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among
others addressing more or less this very question. and the answer was. it's
complicated.

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology
infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate
mechanisms for consultation/decision making. And yes the answer was
multi-stakeholder . but. not multistakeholderist. multi-stakeholder within a
context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder
consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned
including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out
how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this
would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven
with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the
consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough
and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in
Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran. not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it
seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work
in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside - well "first we take Manhattan and then we
take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it's not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of
democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and
being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State
Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected
"civil society" organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonar
d-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Si
ngle_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm';
'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I'm sorry Mike - you are not answering the question.  If you mean by
multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by
states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap -
which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious
length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests -
or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of
voices - including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the
governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let's see how democratic that is to
the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>,
"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net"
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh.

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious
discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over.) the undefined, undescribed,
undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn't get us any closer. 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they
are challenged to get real --well this isn't quite "MSism", it isn't true
MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn't do anyone a service
(except the "wizards" behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism "gets real" it falls apart-either it
doesn't have any operational processes or related significant structures of
accountability so it can't handle even the most insignificant of challenges
without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply
ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most
inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion-the drive towards
convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and
exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.
In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for
political systems that couldn't deal with challenge, divergence, conflict
and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices "or else. 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both
taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are
now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more
complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of
using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the
broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for
effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting
MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against
everything that CS has traditionally stood for-the broadening and deepening
of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of
democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the
developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use
of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power-shifting of power
from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of
those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their
actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I've missed
something but another round of "trust them/us" is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm';
'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make
governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and
accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is
democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your
democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests
represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian
citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net"
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by
Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
(evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the
stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are
some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role
flexibilities".

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain
gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the
highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A
appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better"
by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we
might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:







So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about
public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty
point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.
This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly
agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the
key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse
the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.
I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because
I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general
proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I
personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals
in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at
all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate
that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately
take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a
leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community
may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in
developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance
practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for
the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in
each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if
you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the
appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.







BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/8d9c240f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 23:07:09 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:07:09 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <AAE1487D-9114-4612-842C-E5CE16D85D4D@savitr.info>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <AAE1487D-9114-4612-842C-E5CE16D85D4D@savitr.info>
Message-ID: <0af401cf38f1$8c3a2b90$a4ae82b0$@gmail.com>

Yes, I agree… (only to add Essentially a winner take all political (or financially self-interested) process.

 

M

 

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:srs at savitr.info] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:35 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Andrew Puddephatt; Jeremy Malcolm; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Mike, I have seen multistakeholder processes get real but only where there are operational goals involved .. In such cases active cooperation takes place regardless of whether the person you cooperate with works for a competitor or not.  

 

In the processes where it does break down it does so because of more than one stakeholder being focused on power and control rather than on achieving results. Essentially a winner take all political process.

--srs (iPad)


On 06-Mar-2014, at 8:27, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else… 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> &gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:







So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time ostyle='color:black'>So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.







BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

bsp;

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/029a164e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Mar  5 23:17:36 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:47:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <0af401cf38f1$8c3a2b90$a4ae82b0$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <AAE1487D-9114-4612-842C-E5CE16D85D4D@savitr.info>
 <0af401cf38f1$8c3a2b90$a4ae82b0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <144959c4b60.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

It is rare to meet a politician who is not financially self interested, or 
so my morning paper assures me every time I read the front page. So let us 
not split that hair too much :)


On 6 March 2014 9:38:50 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I agree… (only to add Essentially a winner take all political (or 
> financially self-interested) process.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:srs at savitr.info] Sent: Wednesday, 
> March 05, 2014 7:35 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Andrew Puddephatt; Jeremy Malcolm; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
> Mike, I have seen multistakeholder processes get real but only where there 
> are operational goals involved .. In such cases active cooperation takes 
> place regardless of whether the person you cooperate with works for a 
> competitor or not.
>
>
> In the processes where it does break down it does so because of more than 
> one stakeholder being focused on power and control rather than on achieving 
> results. Essentially a winner take all political process.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>
> On 06-Mar-2014, at 8:27, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew (and Suresh…
>
>
>
> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious 
> discussion and debate.
>
>
> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, 
> undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…
>
>
> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they 
> are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true 
> MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service 
> (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>
>
> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it 
> doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of 
> accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges 
> without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply 
> ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most 
> inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and 
> exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  
> In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for 
> political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict 
> and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else…
>
>
> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both 
> taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we 
> are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much 
> more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility 
> of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, 
> the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for 
> effective participation to previously marginalized populations.
>
>
>
> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting 
> MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against 
> everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening 
> of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of 
> democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the 
> developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use 
> of private power in opposition to the public interest.
>
>
> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power 
> from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of 
> those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their 
> actions, their internal operations and in their structures.
>
>
>
> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed 
> something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] Sent: Wednesday, 
> March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 
> 'parminder'
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>
>
>
> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your 
> democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests 
> represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian 
> citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy 
> Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by 
> Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or 
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no 
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the 
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are 
> some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role 
> flexibilities”.
>
>
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
>
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain 
> gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the 
> highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A 
> appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” 
> by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we 
> might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> 
> &gt,
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about 
> public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty 
> point... Half of the time ostyle='color:black'>So, request a clear response 
> - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov 
> and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of 
> the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most 
> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - 
> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
>
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that 
> question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal 
> answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not 
> accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is 
> appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.
>
>
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals 
> in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at 
> all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate 
> that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately 
> take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a 
> leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical 
> community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society 
> may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging 
> government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, 
> say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ 
> in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows 
> naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because 
> the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to 
> NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
>
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to 
> enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
> bsp;
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/ec395872/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 00:03:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:03:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else… 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> &gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:







So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.







BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/3cd08d61/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 00:30:06 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:00:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3D32DF.66769%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <CF3D32DF.66769%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
Message-ID: <531807DE.6040806@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:24 AM, Nigel Hickson wrote:
> Parminder
>
> Good evening; when you say the "global community" in the UN; are you 
> thinking beyond governments; it is just I recall that when in the UNGA 
> I only recalled governments.....

Good evening, Nigel.

With global community, I mean the people of the world... (similar to the 
evocation also made in most of our national constitutions and also in 
the UN Charter <https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml>  
- 'We, the people..' kind of stuff'.

Which of course immediately brings us to the issue of practicality of 
processes to develop public policies, since no room can accommodate 8 
billion people neither have any means been perfected to have 8 billion 
people communicate at the same time and be able to reach a mutual 
determination of public interest..

So, in fact we are dealing with the issue of the /next best option/, 
which the democratic thought took to be some kind of representation, so 
that a given practical number of people can do this work on behalf of 
the 8 billion.. while keeping some kind of close touch with the 8 
billion and ensuring that it is them that they represent at all times, 
and so on...

Whereby, the question is, what is the best way to have representativity, 
and what is the best way to keep a continuous touch or contact that I 
speak of above..

It was thought that democratic elections are best to develop 
representativity, but it was also thought that further democratic 
process outside and between elections remain necessary - to keep in 
touch, which generally go in the name of participatory democracy...

Now, no election is fully ok - the Chinese is much less ok that US and 
Indian, and so on... And that is the struggle for democracy. Even in 
India or the US, many think that although there are largely free and 
fair elections, democracy is just not working, and the available 
political parties do not give real political options to the people..... 
and to correct this is also the process of reform of democracy... And so 
much is happening all over the world right now...

But, I could not figure out, in this whole struggle, what is 
multistakeholderism, beyond what we know as participatory democracy, and 
why do business need to get political seats on par with (however 
imperfectly) elected representatives plus their interactions with 
people's groups or what is called as civil society... That is the point 
someone needs to explain....

Well, on the UNGA point, yes there are only govs inside the UNGA, but 
you were at the WGEC (CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation), where 
more than half the room was non gov, talking at the same footing as 
govs, and you know that a report of WGEC is given complete and undivided 
attention by the UNGA, most often simply rubber stamped by it. Right...  
That is participatory democracy working - though I really do not agree 
with representatives of Dinsneyland and AT&T and BT being among the very 
few precious non gov seats in such setting. That is completely not done 
in participatory democracy, but that is MSism. We needed to have 
representative of the diabled people, indigenous groups, feminists, 
health activists, and so on, none f them were there... This is MSism.


parminder




>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Reply-To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:21 PM
> To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, 
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for 
> endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
> Hi Jeremy
>
> For quite some time now, my analysis/prediction about the efforts of 
> ICANN plus (and whoever backs them) vis vis the NetMundial has been as 
> follows;
>
> 1. the main aim was to stop Brazil from the path Its President's 
> speech at the UN looked to be paving - that of engaging the global 
> community in UN spaces for the needed global Internet governance 
> mechanisms.... That aim has been achieved, at least for the time being...
>
> 2. To make an alluring offer to Brazil to get them off the track 
> mentioned above, which was in terms of some vague promises about some 
> real steps forward in terms of internationalisation of ICANN... 
> However as NetMundial approaches, we hear less and less of anything 
> concrete in this regard. Anyway, since the show was being arranged, it 
> was found useful if some good text could be got into the NetMundial 
> outcome docs on/*'multistakeholder decision making' including, and 
> specifically, on global public policy issues*/. This latter is the 
> primary objective at this point. And the mentioned parties have been 
> going about in a completely unabashed manner - helped considerably by 
> some unexplained high degree of bashfulness of the involved civil 
> society. We saw 1 Net being formed from nowhere (sorry, now we know, 
> from an ICANN board decision), it taking over the meeting's 
> co-ownership, various shenanigans around selection of its steering 
> committee (which in any case is constantly bypassed, and never seems 
> to converse with the respective constituencies), imposition of a 
> person with highly questionable standing and reputation as civil 
> society leader of the meeting (about which Ian again recommends 
> further bashful for civil society) , and now a sudden survey which 
> will formulate the 1Net aka 'global internet community' view on 
> Internet principles for submission to the netMundial..... and so 
> on.... Believe me, you havent seen nothing yet. Wait for the days 
> close to the meeting....
>
> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has 
> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet 
> governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable 
> access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making 
> process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
> /*
> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder 
> participation"*/ and whether it is different from what is meant in the 
> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are 
> you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal 
> part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. 
> Please address this point specifically.
>
> I hope those proposing this statement will explain this point. I think 
> it is their responsibility to do so, instead of slipping in such 
> concepts, what would in default be, somewhat surreptitiously, which 
> many potential signees are apt to miss..
>
> Thanks
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now 
>> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial 
>> meeting.  These submissions are the end results of extensive 
>> discussions on the Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a 
>> final face-to-face review this week (particularly on the roadmap for 
>> further evolution of the institutional submission) by those of you 
>> who are present at RightsCon in San Francisco.
>>
>> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for 
>> endorsement separately, are:
>>
>>  1. Internet governance principles,
>>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>>     Ecosystem -- institutional mechanisms,
>>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>>     Ecosystem -- ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>>
>>
>> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but 
>> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each 
>> of the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to 
>> read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree 
>> with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social 
>> media, email or word of mouth.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your 
>> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/21228cde/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 00:33:56 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:03:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <531808C4.4010101@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 06 March 2014 10:06 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi 
> stakeholder ideas in your proposition.......
>

Andrew, you just said to Michael in your previous email

" ....which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly 
tedious length....."

Just reminding bec it seems you had forgotten.... and then also there 
was this later talk of insults and so on....

parminder

> which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to 
> explore.
>
> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or 
> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the 
> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr 
> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather 
> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which 
> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a 
> new era of global democracy).
>
> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and 
> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as 
> to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It 
> is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest 
> we terminate this exchange from now.
>
>
>
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but 
> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my 
> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>
> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among 
> others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… 
> it’s complicated…
>
> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting 
> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, 
> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… 
> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not 
> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could 
> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and 
> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to 
> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to 
> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this 
> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but 
> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the 
> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.
>
> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world 
> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well 
> in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about 
> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if 
> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well 
> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>
> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of 
> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think 
> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the 
> US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and 
> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it 
> would appear**
>
> *Leonard Cohen.. 
> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>
> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY 
> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by 
> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by 
> states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap 
> - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly 
> tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows 
> my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global 
> negotiations?
>
> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range 
> of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in 
> the governance debate.
>
> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is 
> to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Andrew (and Suresh…
>
> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of 
> serious discussion and debate.
>
> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, 
> undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…
>
> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever 
> they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it 
> isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone 
> a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>
> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls 
> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related 
> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the 
> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on 
> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves 
> on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of 
> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization 
> and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of 
> scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several 
> names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, 
> divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced 
> choices “or else…
>
> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have 
> both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be 
> where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways 
> forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now 
> have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of 
> democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the 
> extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously 
> marginalized populations.
>
> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically 
> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this 
> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the 
> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public 
> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension 
> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and 
> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in 
> opposition to the public interest.
>
> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of 
> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the 
> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and 
> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in 
> their structures.
>
> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve 
> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to 
> cut it.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Michael
>
> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>
> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your 
> democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my 
> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese 
> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced 
> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or 
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no 
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the 
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they 
> are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with 
> “role flexibilities”.
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the 
> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we 
> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the 
> strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust 
> them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering 
> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a 
> slightly higher reality component.
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy 
> Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision 
> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors.... 
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
> to NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/c6d3a0ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 00:44:29 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:44:29 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [ciresearchers] Global Access to the Internet for
 All (GAIA) is an IRTF initiative
In-Reply-To: <F81A2CE4-EDF6-491C-A553-37DC1C43367F@1st-mile.org>
References: <23694649.9155.1394067909542.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba04-app> <F81A2CE4-EDF6-491C-A553-37DC1C43367F@1st-mile.org>
Message-ID: <0b6701cf38ff$25016ca0$6f0445e0$@gmail.com>

This was just sent to the Community Informatics elist by an old
friend/colleague who has been working in the grassroots ICT trenches since
there were such and probably before (currently mostly with  US Amerindian
folks in New Mexico.

 

It rather sums up my response to Andrew (and I'm looking forward to Andrew's
response to me. i.e. it is isn't simply about substituting one inadequate
system of governance for another one which seems to have its own (and
potentially worse sets of inadequacies and limitations) but rather of
finding ways forward to deepen and enrich what we already have with what we
now have come into possession of.

 

M

 

From: Richard Lowenberg [mailto:rl at 1st-mile.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:27 PM
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; Don Cameron
Cc: jlfullsack at orange.fr; gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [ciresearchers] Global Access to the Internet for All (GAIA) is
an IRTF initiative

 

Don's good posting has provoked me to add a response that I think is
appropriate to this list and its subscribers.

I'll try to be brief.    Language and our use and understanding of it is
getting in the way of a fundamental concept.

 

If we are talking about broadband, and the Internet, and technologies, than
I'd generally agree with Don.

However, I think that something greater is going on.    Our tools are merely
helping us to extend our sensory minds and bodies.

 

If we even partially agree with the human/social evolutionary trajectory,
that we are developing from agrarian, to industrial and manufacturing, to
information and services based, to ecologically intelligent societies (or
bust), than this is about more than just the tech.    By whatever miraculous
reason, humans are increasingly tuning in to the all-permeating and
surrounding information ecosystem.   The fundamental concept of the Internet
is a beautiful evolutionary reality.   For the first time in our
developmentally complex history, we are growing the means for highly complex
inter-personal, and local-global communications networking.    We are early
into it, and we've never done it before, so we're making many mistakes.
We are also growing this technology-facilitated system, with our technical
sensory aids, in a time of many other emergent eco-social mistakes, old
contrivances, dangerous conflicts and plenty of corruption.    We are on a
path, a treacherous one, but also a potentially inspiring one.     

 

Just as 'freedom of speech' has become a human right, our ability to be
intelligent, open-minded, lifelong-learning, creative and healthily
networked people and societies, should be a fundamental human right.    The
tools (the Internet, fiber-optic and wireless spectrum infrastructure, and
the energy  and resources saving systems) are our way of 'tuning in'.
Amid the treachery and the daunting challenges we face, the potential of a
more appropriately and intelligently grown networked society, is a shining
light.     That's why we are all on this list and doing what we are doing.

 

Participation in an 'open information and communications environment' ought
to be a fundamental human right.   We are far from it, and may not get
there.     Our right to be humane is a much greater eco-social challenge
than simply the right to have open networks, and addressing who owns and who
rents access to the tools.    We have our work cut out for us.

 

Richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/4e78ab66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 00:56:50 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:26:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>

p
On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> "not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”
>
> Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire 
> for democracy and accountability as you but have a 
> different understanding of how to reach it

I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable 
to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" 
parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may 
come from) in terms of /*making actual decisions on public policy 
issues*/ is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or 
post-democracy.

And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect 
to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups 
including yours, but got no response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. 
We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..

>
> Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental 
exercises and all.

parminder
>
>
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. 
> but anyway…
>
> I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I 
> think are serious issues concerning MSism…
>
> I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters 
> to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something 
> with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires 
> and Mr. Cameron…
>
> The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” *_9 times_* in 
> less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).
>
> You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism. Perhaps you could give 
> me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments 
> are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.
>
> Tks,
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi 
> stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and 
> in a different mood would be good to explore.
>
> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or 
> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the 
> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr 
> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather 
> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which 
> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a 
> new era of global democracy).
>
> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and 
> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as 
> to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It 
> is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest 
> we terminate this exchange from now.
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but 
> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my 
> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>
> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among 
> others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… 
> it’s complicated…
>
> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting 
> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, 
> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… 
> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not 
> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could 
> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and 
> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to 
> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to 
> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this 
> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but 
> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the 
> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.
>
> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world 
> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well 
> in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about 
> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if 
> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well 
> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>
> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of 
> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think 
> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the 
> US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and 
> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it 
> would appear**
>
> *Leonard Cohen.. 
> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>
> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY 
> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I’m sorry Mike ���you are not answering the question.  If you mean by 
> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by 
> states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap 
> - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly 
> tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows 
> my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global 
> negotiations?
>
> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range 
> of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in 
> the governance debate.
>
> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is 
> to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Andrew (and Suresh…
>
> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of 
> serious discussion and debate.
>
> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, 
> undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…
>
> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever 
> they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it 
> isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone 
> a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>
> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls 
> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related 
> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the 
> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on 
> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves 
> on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of 
> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization 
> and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of 
> scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several 
> names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, 
> divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced 
> choices “or else…
>
> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have 
> both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be 
> where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways 
> forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now 
> have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of 
> democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the 
> extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously 
> marginalized populations.
>
> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically 
> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this 
> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the 
> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public 
> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension 
> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and 
> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in 
> opposition to the public interest.
>
> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of 
> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the 
> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and 
> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in 
> their structures.
>
> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve 
> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to 
> cut it.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Michael
>
> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>
> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your 
> democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my 
> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese 
> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced 
> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or 
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no 
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the 
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they 
> are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with 
> “role flexibilities”.
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the 
> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we 
> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the 
> strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust 
> them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering 
> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a 
> slightly higher reality component.
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy 
> Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision 
> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors.... 
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
> to NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/bd8de52d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 01:23:05 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:23:05 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0bc701cf3904$89854a20$9c8fde60$@gmail.com>

When I started out in this space I believed as you suggest… no particular reason not to… but as time went on and the objective positions that people were taking so clearly lined up in support of corporate interests and the interests of particular governments it got increasingly difficult to maintain that position since clearly those interests that they were supporting were not, to my mind consistent with “democracy and accountability” or with anything that I understood as being the on-going concerns of CS in the larger world… 

 

And then with the WCIT when there was this lemming like stampede to line up behind the US State Department and Google for the Internet Freedom crusade… no reflection on what the positioning behind that crusade might mean in a larger global context or even in a serious thinking about things like taxation, or security, or even real measures to protect diversity and freedom of expression online.  As I said at the time CS is either naïve or bought given the positions they are articulating.  

 

Mr. Snowden has proven the correctness of my analysis at the time but I have yet to hear any reflections by any of the CS (or other) Internet Freedom “crusaders” on their ill-advised positioning.

 

So I guess if stating the truth is insulting, so be it.

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:46 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

 

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it 

 

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else… 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> &gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:








So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.








BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/b7907f63/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 02:33:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:33:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0bf801cf390e$5f7fcc50$1e7f64f0$@gmail.com>

Thanks for the pointer… I did in fact comment on a much earlier version (as circulated as part of a larger email by, I believe Matthew, but this is a good place to begin a useful discussion I think.

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

1.       What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good

a.       How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled

b.      Is this transparent

c.       What are the accountability mechanisms here

d.      Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority

e.      Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.       Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled 

a.       who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—

b.      can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 

c.       Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus

d.      Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this

e.      Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.       How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle 

4.       How is the very real danger of capture guarded against

5.       What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

These are things that occur to me off the top.. I could elaborate on any of these questions as might be useful.

 

Mike

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:36 PM
To: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial

At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/  which was available for comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the issue.

 

I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is enormously challenging and this is the best option of those practically available.  

 

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).   I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile governments to human rights and see that it  has often been catastrophic to human rights .  

 

Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests to dominate internet policy?   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone represented?

 

And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while clearly disagreeing on the means

 

 

From: "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

p

On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

 

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it  


I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may come from) in terms of making actual decisions on public policy issues is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or post-democracy.

And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups including yours, but got no response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..




 

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list


Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental exercises and all. 

parminder 



 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: " <mailto:bestbits at lists.net> <bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else… 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> &gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:








So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.








BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/c5bacf02/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar  6 03:14:44 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:14:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>

Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use
of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
international organisations. No single government should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense
as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries. 
We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how
we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single
government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
"among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one
government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of
other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf
>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to
>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>
>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>
>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>> /*
>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different from
>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so,
>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders,
>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in
>>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point
>>>> specifically. 
>>>
>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this
>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times
>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the
>>> stakeholder roles should be.
>>
>>
>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>
>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision
>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>
>
> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS
> contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>
> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
> multilateral and democratic. "
>
> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come
> from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>
> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted
> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
> principles, and G 8 principles....
>
> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary
> fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>
> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society
> actors in IG space - come up with .....
>
> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
> participation */" (emphasis added)
>
> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone
> and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know
> which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this
> doc.
>
> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get
> caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of
> the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic
> world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that
> a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the
> powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>
> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches
> what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US
> supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from
> NetMundial...... All of piece.
>
> parminder
>
>
>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not
>> skirt it...
>>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate
>> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical
>> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to
>> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and
>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to
>> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of
>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic
>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need
>> to work together."
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk
>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>
>>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/36ed3720/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 03:49:04 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:19:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 06 March 2014 12:06 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, 
> my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to 
> move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial
> At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ which was available for 
> comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing 
> substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the 
> issue.
>
> I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is 
> enormously challenging and this is the best option of those 
> practically available.

I will comment on this approach you take in the above proposed 
submission in my next email, first on the principle level issue of who 
makes public policy decisions...

>
> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments 
> should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they 
> are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I 
> misunderstand you).

You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies 
the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is 
so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, 
or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we 
got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my 
organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to 
help, but not do, policy making.

However, your poser clearly shows that you believe that this should not 
be the case... In that case please let me know /*who should take the 
public policy decisions, and how*/? To be clear on this is important 
because there are an enormous number of public policy issues to be 
sorted out and default/ status quo simply benefits that economically and 
politically most powerful. This is a direct question.

To note, your proposed roadmap proposes no model for public policy 
decision making, only for agenda developing and vetting..... Apparently, 
decisions are still to be made in an inter- governmental manner by 
existing global policy bodies. Right? Please do let me know if I am 
wrong...Again a direct question.

So, unlike, what you claim about Michael's position, it is you who do 
not have a model for making global Internet related public policy 
decisions, rather than he. However, if I am wrong and you do have a 
model, lets see it, and we can comment on it.

I hope it is not your case that there are not significant global 
Internet related public policy issues to be sorted out. But if that is 
the case, lets discuss that particular issue. It is good to be specific. 
(BTW, do see numerous developing country, including Brazil's, submission 
to WGEC on such outstanding Internet-related public policy issues)


> I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to 
> promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human 
> Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile 
> governments to human rights and see that it  has often been 
> catastrophic to human rights .

When I look at my parliament, I consider it catastrophic in many 
manners, but still it does not take away my belief in parliamentary 
democracy. Just need to improve things by and by. BTW, human rights 
council did adopt the privacy resolution recently, which is quite good 
and also rather specific.... This is much more than IGF has achieved in 
10 years -- just to take one instance, when the whole world is reeling 
under net neutrality erosions, this issue has successfully been 
prevented to be discussed as a main session policy issue at the IGF. Who 
prevented it. Make a guess.  I can write a full story how it has been 
done (BTW try reading transcripts of feb 2012 MAG meeting in Paris).
>
> Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business

Well, that is a problem.. and represents a fundamental disbelief in 
politics and democracy, which I cannot do much about.. But still, coming 
from you I am a bit shocked to hear this....


> – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the 
> wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies 
> (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are 
> utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests 
> to dominate internet policy?

Andrew, your statement of the problem is - the existing so called 
democratic governance systems are dominated by business interests. I 
agree, and we must do something about it. A lot of democracy movements 
worldwide, in which I participate, are doing something about it. What I 
cannot understand or agree with is your solution.... How does giving 
formal political power to those same big businesses - through 
multistakeholder decision making - solves or even begins to address that 
problem... Does it not simply exacerbates it -- with not even a possible 
eventual solution, because we would have normatively and structurally 
admitted dominance of big business.... Sorry, but I simply do not get this.


>   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.

In my time at WGEC, I see big business reps, and compliant civil 
society, simply shout down any possibility of global addressing of key 
and pressing Internet related public policy issues -- which simply helps 
big monopolies and oligopolies keep stuffing their safes more and more 
at the expense of public interest.

>  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone 
> represented?

Yes, those are key questions.... And my answer is - giving big business 
formal political power is going in exactly the opposite directions from 
improving people's representativity in policy processes. We should try 
to reduce the power of big business, bot sanctify and formalise it...

parminder
>
> And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think 
> you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while 
> clearly disagreeing on the means
>
>
> From: "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> p
> On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> "not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”
>>
>> Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire 
>> for democracy and accountability as you but have a 
>> different understanding of how to reach it
>
> I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable 
> to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" 
> parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may 
> come from) in terms of /*making actual decisions on public policy 
> issues*/ is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or 
> post-democracy.
>
> And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with 
> respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society 
> groups including yours, but got no response.
>
> However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please 
> explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..
>
>>
>> Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list
>
> Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental 
> exercises and all.
>
> parminder
>>
>>
>> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
>> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
>> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. 
>> but anyway…
>>
>> I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I 
>> think are serious issues concerning MSism…
>>
>> I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters 
>> to those arguments or even address them in some serious way 
>> (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese 
>> billionaires and Mr. Cameron…
>>
>> The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” *_9 times_* in 
>> less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).
>>
>> You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could 
>> give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my 
>> arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.
>>
>> Tks,
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
>> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi 
>> stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and 
>> in a different mood would be good to explore.
>>
>> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or 
>> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the 
>> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr 
>> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather 
>> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which 
>> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to ushering in a 
>> new era of global democracy).
>>
>> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and 
>> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious 
>> as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with 
>> you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so 
>> I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.
>>
>> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
>> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but 
>> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my 
>> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>>
>> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki 
>> among others addressing more or less this very question… and the 
>> answer was… it’s complicated…
>>
>> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting 
>> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, 
>> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… 
>> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not 
>> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could 
>> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and 
>> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to 
>> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to 
>> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this 
>> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but 
>> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the 
>> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the 
>> democracy.
>>
>> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world 
>> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as 
>> well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about 
>> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if 
>> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well 
>> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>>
>> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of 
>> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think 
>> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the 
>> US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and 
>> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it 
>> would appear**
>>
>> *Leonard Cohen.. 
>> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>>
>> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY 
>> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
>> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> I’m sorry Mike ���you are not answering the question.  If you mean by 
>> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted 
>> by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is 
>> crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and 
>> increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative 
>> that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in 
>> global negotiations?
>>
>> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader 
>> range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful 
>> actors- in the governance debate.
>>
>> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that 
>> is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>>
>> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
>> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Andrew (and Suresh…
>>
>> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of 
>> serious discussion and debate.
>>
>> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, 
>> undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any 
>> closer…
>>
>> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme 
>> whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite 
>> “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, 
>> doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>>
>> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls 
>> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related 
>> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the 
>> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on 
>> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and 
>> moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of 
>> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
>> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of 
>> marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any 
>> real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of 
>> experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t 
>> deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed 
>> consensus and forced choices “or else…
>>
>> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they 
>> have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us 
>> to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable 
>> ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover 
>> we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the 
>> extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of 
>> diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective 
>> participation to previously marginalized populations.
>>
>> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically 
>> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this 
>> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the 
>> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public 
>> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension 
>> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and 
>> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in 
>> opposition to the public interest.
>>
>> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of 
>> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the 
>> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and 
>> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in 
>> their structures.
>>
>> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve 
>> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to 
>> cut it.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
>> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
>> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
>> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>>
>> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
>> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is 
>> your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my 
>> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese 
>> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>>
>> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
>> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced 
>> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) 
>> or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, 
>> no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and 
>> the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since 
>> they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those 
>> with “role flexibilities”.
>>
>> Have I missed something here?
>>
>> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the 
>> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we 
>> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling 
>> the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of 
>> “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering 
>> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a 
>> slightly higher reality component.
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy 
>> Malcolm
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision 
>> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors.... 
>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
>> skirt it...
>>
>> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
>> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
>> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
>> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
>> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
>> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
>> language being used.
>>
>> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
>> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
>> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
>> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
>> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
>> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
>> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
>> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
>> rights based principles for judging government surveillance 
>> practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting 
>> prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
>> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
>> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
>> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
>> circumstances.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>
>> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
>> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/58b5b2b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 04:07:16 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:37:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
Message-ID: <53183AC4.5080108@itforchange.net>

Anriette

I dont think the meaning of multilateral - in terms of global governance 
- has changed since 2001. It is the same. it was never necessarily 
involving only  governments (UNESCO is and was always multi-lateral, but 
involves so many non-gov parties in such deep measures) but yes public 
policy decision making was by governments ..... But of course APC is the 
best judge and exponent of how the term is used in APC's charter..

In any case, since this point in APC charter is about oversight of the 
Internet, what is written in the APC charter certainly goes completely 
against the proposed submission on the BB platform on ICANN matters..

  parminder


On Thursday 06 March 2014 01:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the 
> use of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the 
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and 
> international organisations. No single government should have a 
> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines 
> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, 
> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No 
> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to 
> international internet governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term 
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning 
> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we 
> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no 
> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement 
> of other stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf 
>>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
>>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>> /*
>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from 
>>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, 
>>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, 
>>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in 
>>>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point 
>>>>> specifically.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this 
>>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
>>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times 
>>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
>>>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
>>>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the 
>>>> stakeholder roles should be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>
>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
>>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>>
>>
>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this 
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder 
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>
>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>
>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present 
>> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come 
>> from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>
>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted 
>> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>
>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term 
>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>
>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>
>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this 
>> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder 
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>
>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 
>> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to 
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... 
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away 
>> from this doc.
>>
>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to 
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin 
>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post 
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is 
>> a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan 
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>
>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting 
>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches 
>> what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US 
>> supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from 
>> NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - 
>>> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and 
>>> not skirt it...
>>>
>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>
>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
>>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
>>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
>>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the 
>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and 
>>> technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should 
>>> continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of 
>>> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The 
>>> private sector and particularly the technical community 
>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution 
>>> and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In 
>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas 
>>> and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all 
>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>
>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/66e5bc7b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Mar  6 04:15:20 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:15:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Just Net Coalition contribution on Principles for
 Netmundial.br
Message-ID: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>

(I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits and /1net
mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you receiving multiple
copies.)


Dear all

Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New Delhi
of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree that in
Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and social justice
must be increased.

This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name "Just
Net Coalition".

We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and submitted
it to the NETmundial.br meeting.

Gretings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 79143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/f0517e98/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Mar  6 04:24:21 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:24:21 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <0bf801cf390e$5f7fcc50$1e7f64f0$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
 <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0bf801cf390e$5f7fcc50$1e7f64f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1721170106.6618.1394097861899.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07>

Thanks Michael

 

for asking the good:relevant question !

 

Thiis questioning reminds me the beginning of the WSIS 2nd phase in Geneva where we saw tens of "spontaneous born" Tunesian "simili ONG" (we called them Onot reallyNGs) flooding in the process, after having been agreed by the WSIS Secretariat. These new breed of "ONGs" have deliberately sabotaged the CS Plenaries when it came to examine or question the HR issues in Ben Ali's country. 

 

What's more, those tunesian true ONGs, mainly grass-roots, who tried to inform us (the CS Plenary and its relevant committees) about the tunesian regime abuses didn't get the "WSIS aggreement" from the Secretariat and we -the CS and our tunesian friends orgs- had to move our meetings with their representatives from the official WSIS Prepcom site (ILO) to the Oecumenical Center some hundreds meter away from the ILO premises.

 

This was a sad experience of "selective multistakeholderism" and "freedom od expression" inside the WSIS paradise !

 

Unless to mention that we found our WSIS banned tunesian friends Orgs and their activists in the forefront of the "Tunis Spring". And the same that have previously banned them from the WSIS welcomed the "new rise of Tunesia" made possible .... by the WSIS activities and the overall virtue of ICT and Internet !

 

As we use to say in French : "plus faux-cul que cela tu meurs".  

 

Best regards

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 06/03/14 08:35
> De : "michael gurstein" 
> A : "'Andrew Puddephatt'" , "'parminder'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Jeremy Malcolm'" 
> Copie à : bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
> 
>

Thanks for the pointer… I did in fact comment on a much earlier version (as circulated as part of a larger email by, I believe Matthew, but this is a good place to begin a useful discussion I think.

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

1.       What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good

a.       How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled

b.      Is this transparent

c.       What are the accountability mechanisms here

d.      Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority

e.      Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.       Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled 

a.       who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—

b.      can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 

c.       Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus

d.      Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this

e.      Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.       How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle 

4.       How is the very real danger of capture guarded against

5.       What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

These are things that occur to me off the top.. I could elaborate on any of these questions as might be useful.

 

Mike

 



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:36 PM
> To: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 


Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial



At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/  which was available for comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the issue.



 



I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is enormously challenging and this is the best option of those practically available.  



 



Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).   I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile governments to human rights and see that it  has often been catastrophic to human rights .  



 



Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests to dominate internet policy?   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone represented?



 



And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while clearly disagreeing on the means



 



 



From: "parminder at itforchange.net" 

> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
> To: andrew Puddephatt , michael gurstein , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm 
> Cc: "" 
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 




p


On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:




"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”



 



Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it  




> I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may come from) in terms of making actual decisions on public policy issues is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or post-democracy.
> 
> And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups including yours, but got no response.
> 
> However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..
> 
> 
> 


 



Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list



> Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental exercises and all. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 


 



 



From: michael gurstein 
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
> To: andrew Puddephatt , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" 

> Cc: "" 
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 




Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 


Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 



From: michael gurstein 
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
> To: andrew Puddephatt , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" 

> Cc: "" 
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 




Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 


I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?



 



Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.



 



Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)



 



From: michael gurstein 
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
> To: andrew Puddephatt , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" 

> Cc: "" 
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 




Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

>From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else… 

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. 

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 


Michael



 



Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.



 



Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 



 



 



  



 



From: michael gurstein 
> Reply-To: michael gurstein 
> Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" 

> Cc: "" 
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 




I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 



From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net



 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder 
wrote:



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...




 



Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.



 



For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.



 



This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
> 
> ...
> 
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...


 



Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.


 










--



Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com



Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek



host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'



 


WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.







 









 







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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/4c5215c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joy at apc.org  Thu Mar  6 04:55:26 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 22:55:26 +1300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>

As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full
quote in Theme 6.1 is:

    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
    full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
    and international organisations. No single government should have a
    pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.

This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are
not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on
record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are
simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits
submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together,
certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and
should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best
Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant
to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing
so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which
is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
parity with each other when doing so;

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial
is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human
rights (among others) are relevant to them.


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the
> use of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a
> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines
> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments,
> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No
> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
> international internet governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no
> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement
> of other stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf
>>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to
>>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>> /*
>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different from
>>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so,
>>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders,
>>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in
>>>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point
>>>>> specifically. 
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this
>>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times
>>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>>>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>>>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the
>>>> stakeholder roles should be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>
>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision
>>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>>
>>
>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>
>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>
>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
>> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come
>> from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>
>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted
>> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>
>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>
>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>
>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
>> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>
>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
>> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group....
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away
>> from this doc.
>>
>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin
>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is
>> a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>
>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches
>> what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US
>> supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from
>> NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point -
>>> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and
>>> not skirt it...
>>>
>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>
>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the
>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and
>>> technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should
>>> continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of
>>> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The
>>> private sector and particularly the technical community
>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution
>>> and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas
>>> and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>
>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk
>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/e33722df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/e33722df/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar  6 04:56:58 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:26:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Just Net Coalition contribution on Principles for
 Netmundial.br
In-Reply-To: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>
References: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>
Message-ID: <10CCDF21-6F90-4377-8BA9-2B789F44723C@hserus.net>

Hi Norbert, it would help if a list of the current signatories to this document (you, Indian NGOs ..) could be appended to the document.

thanks
--srs (iPad)

> On 06-Mar-2014, at 14:45, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> (I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits and /1net
> mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you receiving multiple
> copies.)
> 
> 
> Dear all
> 
> Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New Delhi
> of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree that in
> Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and social justice
> must be increased.
> 
> This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name "Just
> Net Coalition".
> 
> We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and submitted
> it to the NETmundial.br meeting.
> 
> Gretings,
> Norbert
> <Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub1.pdf>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Mar  6 05:15:04 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:15:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Just Net Coalition contribution on Principles for
 Netmundial.br
In-Reply-To: <10CCDF21-6F90-4377-8BA9-2B789F44723C@hserus.net>
References: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>
	<10CCDF21-6F90-4377-8BA9-2B789F44723C@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>

Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Hi Norbert, it would help if a list of the current signatories to
> this document (you, Indian NGOs ..) could be appended to the document.

At the current stage what we have is a consensus decision to form the
"Just Net Coalition" and a consensus decision to submit this document,
but we haven't completed the process of working out the Terms of
Reference or Charter (or whatever it'll get called) of Just Net
Coalition nor of figuring out the coalition's precise initial
composition (in the sense of who are organisational members and who
are individual members).

But I absolutely agree, this needs to be sorted out ASAP, so that a
“list of the current signatories” can indeed be appended.

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 06-Mar-2014, at 14:45, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > (I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits
> > and /1net mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you
> > receiving multiple copies.)
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all
> > 
> > Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New
> > Delhi of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree
> > that in Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and
> > social justice must be increased.
> > 
> > This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name
> > "Just Net Coalition".
> > 
> > We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and
> > submitted it to the NETmundial.br meeting.
> > 
> > Gretings,
> > Norbert
> > <Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub1.pdf>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your 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  Thu Mar  6 05:36:23 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:06:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] Just Net Coalition contribution on Principles for
 Netmundial.br
In-Reply-To: <20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>
References: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>	<10CCDF21-6F90-4377-8BA9-2B789F44723C@hserus.net> <20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>
Message-ID: <53184FA7.1060602@itforchange.net>

It was basically a global meeting and not an Indian one - with about 25 
international participants and maybe 10 Indian... just from the top of 
my head..

The draft principles were adopted at the meeting, and have been further 
fine tuned and elaborated since for the Brazil submission, which is at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-a-just-and-equitable-internet-for-all/110 
.

These principles are now begin finalised as a collective work in form of 
what will be called as 'Delhi Declaration for an Equitable and Just 
Internet', likely by 15th March.

parminder


On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Norbert, it would help if a list of the current signatories to
>> this document (you, Indian NGOs ..) could be appended to the document.
> At the current stage what we have is a consensus decision to form the
> "Just Net Coalition" and a consensus decision to submit this document,
> but we haven't completed the process of working out the Terms of
> Reference or Charter (or whatever it'll get called) of Just Net
> Coalition nor of figuring out the coalition's precise initial
> composition (in the sense of who are organisational members and who
> are individual members).
>
> But I absolutely agree, this needs to be sorted out ASAP, so that a
> “list of the current signatories” can indeed be appended.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>>> On 06-Mar-2014, at 14:45, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits
>>> and /1net mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you
>>> receiving multiple copies.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New
>>> Delhi of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree
>>> that in Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and
>>> social justice must be increased.
>>>
>>> This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name
>>> "Just Net Coalition".
>>>
>>> We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and
>>> submitted it to the NETmundial.br meeting.
>>>
>>> Gretings,
>>> Norbert
>>> <Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub1.pdf>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/da5febf4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Mar  6 06:31:22 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:31:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Alternatives?
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
 <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Andrew:

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).  

 
Parminder
You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy making. 

 
Wolfgang:
 
The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation). 
 
With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more. 
 
The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture. 
 
Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.  
 
The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.). 
 
But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions. 
 
However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.
 
If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages. 
 
 
 

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

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 06:44:13 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:44:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
Message-ID: <nbh64h3p0odxbpm9ggnx59sn.1394106253718@email.android.com>

+1

-------- Original message --------
From: joy <joy at apc.org> 
Date: 03/06/2014  4:55 AM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>,parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net 
 
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
Internet governance should be multilateral and       democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.
This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing so; and 
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that 
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity with each other when doing so; 

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them. 


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as       meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...

Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically.

Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles. At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.


I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors....


It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The             right to multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -         does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also         quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil         society actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and equitable multistakeholder participation " (emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc. 

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order. 

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of         piece.

parminder


And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder





--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/cfb7ebee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 07:02:41 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:32:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
Message-ID: <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>

Joy

You clarify the difference between two positions very well..

So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  
participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as 
gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.

*/Fine. There is no room for confusion now.

  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.

Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying 
statements.

parminder

PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - 
or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I 
hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. 
Thanks.

/*
*/
On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>
>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>     society and international organisations. No single government
>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>     internet governance.
>
> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes 
> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been 
> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these 
> are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best 
> Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken 
> together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be 
> deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human 
> rights.
>
> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>
> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
> relevant to internet governance
> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
> doing so; and
> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore 
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though 
> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>
> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
> which is relevant to internet governance
> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
> parity with each other when doing so;
>
> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which 
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation 
> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>
>
> Joy
> Joy
> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the 
>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>
>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>
>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the 
>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society 
>> and international organisations. No single government should have a 
>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>
>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>
>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines 
>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of 
>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in 
>> relation to international internet governance."
>>
>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term 
>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning 
>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we 
>> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no 
>> one government should dominate - but in the context of the 
>> involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf 
>>>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>>>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
>>>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>>>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from 
>>>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, 
>>>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, 
>>>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) 
>>>>>> in making decisions about public policies. Please address this 
>>>>>> point specifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this 
>>>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
>>>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various 
>>>>> times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became 
>>>>> "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to 
>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how 
>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>>
>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
>>>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>>>
>>>
>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this 
>>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not 
>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>
>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
>>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
>>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>
>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present 
>>> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not 
>>> come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle 
>>> inspirations.
>>>
>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted 
>>> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
>>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>
>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term 
>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>
>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>
>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this 
>>> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder 
>>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>
>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to 
>>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... 
>>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay 
>>> away from this doc.
>>>
>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to 
>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin 
>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post 
>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is 
>>> a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan 
>>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>
>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
>>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
>>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting 
>>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it 
>>> matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present 
>>> of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the 
>>> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>>>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - 
>>>> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and 
>>>> not skirt it...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>
>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
>>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
>>>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
>>>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
>>>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
>>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the 
>>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and 
>>>> technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should 
>>>> continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of 
>>>> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The 
>>>> private sector and particularly the technical community 
>>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution 
>>>> and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In 
>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas 
>>>> and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all 
>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>
>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, 
>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/961bfb8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 07:03:31 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:03:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhv1y80BYmvKijjOuEg-3KS3u6=y+DS4XzxcqEGJrJaMA@mail.gmail.com>

When you top post, one can't tell who you are replying to.

It looks like you are replying to PJS, but the content of your message
suggest otherwise.

rgds,

McTim



On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:57 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by
> Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are
> some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr... those with "role
> flexibilities".
>
>
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
>
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain
> gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"--we have it on the
> highest possible authority--trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A
> appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better"
> by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we
> might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean *parity* in *decision making*about *public
> policies *between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty
> point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.
> This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd
> possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept
> what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>
>
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that
> question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal
> answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not
> accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is
> appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.
>
>
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be
> more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them
> will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example
> governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes,
> the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards,
> civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for
> judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may
> do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ
> in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows
> naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because
> the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
> NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
>
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/95b2732c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Mar  6 07:35:11 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:35:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>

I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
Stephanie Perrin 
On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> 
> Andrew:
> 
> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).  
> 
> 
> Parminder
> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy making. 
> 
> 
> Wolfgang:
> 
> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation). 
> 
> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more. 
> 
> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture. 
> 
> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.  
> 
> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.). 
> 
> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions. 
> 
> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.
> 
> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 07:40:30 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:40:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8L-RyPN6rpRjNdt9TncO_f9APVc6O7Q597ibFO6o55Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-MoP55m_F06iDxBUAPP01KLRjLRFuZfQq+WuCW06OcgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53166F9E.5070301@gmx.net> <CACTo+v8L-RyPN6rpRjNdt9TncO_f9APVc6O7Q597ibFO6o55Og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9BxT_X2uLwXLUO=mY0YMAYOSMj+Vg18npx-cFdVttneA@mail.gmail.com>

As it has been brought to my attention that my comments and question were
not clear enough to some, here is another way of stating my concerns
quoting from the original text (with a reiteration of my comments in square
brackets and caps).

<quote>

The DNSA would require a binding contract with ICANN regarding the
conditions under which

it would agree to implement changes in the root zone or other associated
databases to reflect policies

emerging from ICANN's policy development processes [WHO WILL BE THE
ENFORCER IN ODER TO MAKE SUCH CONTRACT BINDING?]. The contract should
ensure that the DNSA

has no policy authority but merely implements valid requests for additions
or deletions emerging from

ICANN's policy process [NOTED!]. DNSA would promise to abide by ICANN
policy directives on the

condition that ICANN's policy decisions related to the root not be used to
impose requirements on

registries, via registry agreements, to regulate content or otherwise
locally lawful behavior of registrants.

The existence of this contract would provide the opportunity for developing
an additional accountability

check on ICANN [HOW SO? AGAIN WHO IS THE AUTHORITY THAT WOULD MAKE THIS
SO-CALLED "ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY" EFFECTIVE?]. For example, if the
contract was not in perpetuity but was renewable every five

years, diverse entities might compete to replace the existing ICANN as the
policy development

authority [SO HERE IS THE CRUX: YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING THAT ONE OF THOSE
PARTIES, THE DNSA, IS IN A POSITION TO AWARD THIS CONTRACT TO THE OTHER,
AND SO IT MIGHT AT SOME POINT WITHDRAW IT FROM THAT OTHER PARTY AND AWARD
IT TO ANOTHER -- NOT UNLIKE THE POSITION THE USG WAS IN WITH ICANN. DO YOU
UNDERSTAND THE TENSION? AT THE VERY LEAST THERE IS A GAP IN YOUR EXPLAINING
REGARDING THE FULL MECHANISMS OF THIS CONTRACTING, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST SAY
DNSA HAS NO POLICY AUTHORITY WHILE IMPLYING IT MIGHT TAKE THE CONTRACT AWAY
FROM ICANN (SINCE YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED WHERE ELSE THE AUTHORITY FOR DOING
THAT WOULD LIE IN THAT RELATIONSHIP OR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.] As for the
DNSA, as a private association of incumbent registries, any attempt by it to

manipulate root zone management to thwart competition or discriminate
against eligible members would

be easily challenged by competition law authorities in Europe, the U.S., or
elsewhere

</quote>


Mawaki


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Milton,
>
>
> [Note: Sorry for duplication. I thought your original post was sent to
> both the IGC list and the 1net list and wanted also to reply to both lists
> but it was apparently sent only to the latter list. So for IGC I am posting
> my comments and questions in this thread as we are here considering your
> proposal as a potential reference in possible IGC statement for the
> NETmundial. Your quick response to the following as well as to the previous
> question (both of which are connected at some point) would be appreciated.
> Again, sorry for any confusion.]
>
>
> Thank you and Brenden for putting together this innovative attempt to
> solving the challenges of the evolving institutional field for Internet
> governance, and for sharing it. I have two points about your proposal.
>
>
> First, it is not clear to me how combining the IANA functions (which your
> proposal define as clerical) with the Root Zone Maintainer functions (which
> I would think are technical, with no more decision making power than the
> IANA functions) in a new entity provides that entity with the authority you
> seem to be giving it.
>
> Indeed, it sounds like you're proposing to end the _political_ oversight
> from USG by replacing it with the industry (DNSA) oversight. You say the
> existence of a contract between ICANN and the DNSA provides check and
> balance to ICANN and that other entities may even compete to replace ICANN
> if that contract were to (as it could) be made renewable every 5 years for
> instance, etc. In other words, this contract doesn't seem like a contract
> between peer organizations with each just having specific different roles
> toward the other, but a contract between a principal and an agent, or in
> any case between an entity that has (a higher) authority over the other
> since the former can put an end to the raison d'etre of the latter and give
> it away to a competitor.
>
>
> While I understand the incentive-based rationale for the membership of the
> DNSA, I fail to see where you make the case for such larger authority as
> you attribute to it, again merely by combining the IANA functions with the
> Root Zone Maintainer functions. What is the source of the DNSA authority
> which makes it competent to exercise an oversight that matches the previous
> political oversight (since removing the term "political" from "oversight"
> doesn't seem to narrow it to only the clerical and technical roles DNSA is
> supposed to carry out in the new governance structure) and competent to
> decide to grant or not to grant ICANN its contract?
>
>
> I think clarifying this will also help resolve the question as to whether
> political considerations (in the larger sense of political) need to be
> brought to bear in deciding who should be part of the DNSA - which can be a
> decisive factor for the success or failure of this proposal.
>
>
> My second point is much shorter and concerns your reference to a treaty,
> at last twice. I don't seem to find anywhere in the text an explanation
> about what the purpose of a treaty would be within the framework of this
> proposal. Would you mind elaborate on that?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>  +1
>>
>> ..."democratic and equitable representation across world regions"...
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> in Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/5/2014 2:10 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> Milton,
>>
>>  How would you address the challenge of democratic (assuming you agree
>> that this is or may be applicable here) and equitable representation across
>> world regions within the framework or under the fundamental principle of
>> the solution you and Brenden are proposing in that paper?
>>
>>  From my experience, there is no denying that minorities are or feel
>> even more isolated in a setting when the elements that define the
>> delineation between (a large) majority and (a small) minority prominently
>> albeit silently or de facto include culture.
>>
>>  Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:49 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, my organisations and 45 others had suggested a
>>> Technical Oversight Board which will consist of 2-3 persons from each geo-
>>> political region, these people being from key technical academic
>>> institutions, and a method selection/ election from among possible
>>> candidates from each region could be devised... Plus, one member from each
>>> region could come from the respective RIR...
>>>
>>> This is a much more democratic spread then getting root operators as
>>> ICANN's overseers (an overwhelming number from the US, and all from
>>> developed countries) , or even TLD operators, who are mostly from the US,
>>> apart from the root operator/ TLD owners proposal suffering from the
>>> problem of those regulated overseeing the regulators....
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 04 March 2014 06:06 AM, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>>>
>>>   I do think it's worth having a bullet on the IANA issue
>>> --internalization/
>>> internationalization/ globalization-- as part of an IGC submission.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  There are two proposals on the table: Ian's, which would strengthen
>>> ICANN
>>> by simply giving it control of IANA, and the IGP proposal, which takes
>>> IANA
>>> out of ICANN and makes it an independent entity controlled by all the
>>> world's TLD registries and root server operators.
>>>
>>> At the very least, a statement from IGC could reference both proposals
>>> as
>>> something worth considering.
>>>
>>>  This sounds to me like a good compromise under the current time
>>> constraints.
>>>
>>>  I am unable to agree to a model where those who are supposed to be
>>> regulated supervise the regulators.... .(next, telcos supervise FCC and
>>> such telecom regulators!?) I would even call it weird.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>  Preferably, however, we should have a substantive discussion about the
>>> merits of either approach.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Do you mean by the March 8th deadline? Otherwise we may certainly have
>>> this
>>> discussion not only for a possible oral contribution during Sao Paulo
>>> proceedings but also for potential input in further processes beyond Sao
>>> Paulo (I'm sure the NETMundial will net be the end of all this search for
>>> the future of Ig.)
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/491ffb54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar  6 08:52:05 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:52:05 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>

+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,

jeanette

Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>>
>> Andrew:
>>
>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>
>>
>> Parminder
>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy making.
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>>
>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>
>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.
>>
>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.
>>
>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>
>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).
>>
>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions.
>>
>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.
>>
>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 09:00:55 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:00:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0d0b01cf3944$7f406640$7dc132c0$@gmail.com>

Andrew, 

 

I fail to see how Wolfgang's discussion of MSism as an ideal type (using the
narrowly technical issues addressed by the IETF as his example) addresses
any of the reality based questions that I posed.

 

Perhaps you (or Wolfgang or others) could either indicate how Wolfgang's
comments do address my questions or respond to them yourself.

 

As a reminder I'm copying them in below...

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m
afraid..

1.	What are the details for the formation/determination of
“stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the
public good

a.	How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups
handled
b.	Is this transparent
c.	What are the accountability mechanisms here
d.	Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority
e.	Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.	Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts
between stakeholders handled 

a.	who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the
result is in the public interest—
b.	can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to
deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the
private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 
c.	Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus
d.	Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this
e.	Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible
for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.	How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who
challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is
relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and
handle 
4.	How is the very real danger of capture guarded against
5.	What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

Without dealing with the above and associated reality based questions you
and the other MSist advocates are expecting folks to buy a pig in a poke

alright perhaps for some – the powerful and the networked but dangerous
indeed for everyone else.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:47 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder;
michael gurstein; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

 

I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t think
I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG
- a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the
other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open
multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one
(vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights

 

Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive

 

 

On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""

< <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

 

> 

>Andrew:

> 

>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments 

>should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they 

>are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand
you).

> 

> 

>Parminder

>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies 

>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This 

>is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, 

>IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we
got...

>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my 

>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to 

>help, but not do, policy making.

> 

> 

>Wolfgang:

> 

>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ 

>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to 

>reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated 

>that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an 

>already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The 

>only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an 

>agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

> 

>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial 

>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.

>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most 

>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This 

>will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with 

>no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for 

>individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic 

>development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job 

>opportunies and something more.

> 

>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - 

>the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder 

>policy development process where governments are just one (vey 

>important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to 

>communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among 

>themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their 

>legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you 

>need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - 

>in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and 

>non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

> 

>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough 

>consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and 

>amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and 

>economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it 

>helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority 

>which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

> 

>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder 

>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general 

>principles (which would allow also some governments to make 

>reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the 

>Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and 

>to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of 

>concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include 

>also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like 

>clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

> 

>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to 

>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via 

>bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder
environment.

>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet 

>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a 

>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would 

>probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member 

>states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy
approach.

>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular 

>the governments) will keep their own positions.

> 

>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural

>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an 

>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the 

>day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by 

>those set of principles, which will have the support not only by 

>governments of the UN member states but also by all the other
non-governmental stakeholders.

>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not 

>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the 

>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not 

>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which 

>helped to reduce such violations.

> 

>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are 

>moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.

> 

> 

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/cac29e54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 09:15:56 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:15:56 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
	<18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
	<09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
	<CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
about the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
creating new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for
civil society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong
corporate sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for
global action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
require policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the
Internet governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
pressing our case in the most effective manner available to us at this
point in time.  Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more
direct (and democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I
view the incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly
NOT detrimental to our long-term objectives.


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> + 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>
>> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>> for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>> delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine
>> why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this
>> point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to
>> stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Andrew:
>>>
>>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should
>>> in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>>> sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>>
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>>> the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>>> for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>>> other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>>> should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation
>>> has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>>> policy making.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wolfgang:
>>>
>>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>>> governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>>> consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>>> there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>>> existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you
>>> will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>>> disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>>
>>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>>> system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>>> You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>>> restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be
>>> a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>>> technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>>> rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>>> particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something
>>> more.
>>>
>>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>>> the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>>> policy development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>>> stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>>> coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>>> other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
>>> by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
>>> stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>>> countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>>> domination and capture.
>>>
>>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>>> consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and
>>> amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and
>>> economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to
>>> move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>>> represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>>
>>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>>> rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>>> principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in
>>> line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>>> Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>>> multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>>> direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>>> launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>>> observatories etc.).
>>>
>>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>>> Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>>> regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>>> outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>>> Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>>> Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
>>> different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>>> Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>>> Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the
>>> governments) will keep their own positions.
>>>
>>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>>> determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>>> escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>>> all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>>> principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
>>> member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
>>> is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
>>> world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>>> direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>>> violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped
>>> to reduce such violations.
>>>
>>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
>>> backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/ea421ec5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Mar  6 09:17:35 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:17:35 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5318837F.4020507@cdt.org>

Thanks Wolfgang - very well articulated and reflective of the realities 
we face.


Wolfgang:

The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.

The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions.

However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.

If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.




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

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

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


-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 09:26:58 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:26:58 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
	<18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
	<09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
	<CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
	<CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdsSs+2EBfbV09KL2LBWM=2a74bXO9zoUQ7hgq2y-f-WA@mail.gmail.com>

+ 1 on Gene
But I also see that what is happening here is something "normal" taking
into consideration the state we are within the debates of "openness" and
"participation"
even in business and law theories this debate has been emerging - if you
look into theories of open innovation (Cherbrough), user driven innovation
(Von Hippel) or crowdsource innovation  (Lakhani > free software and
Benkler > free culture and peer innovation), and design for generative
results (Zittrain).
It was actually to see ICANN bringing a bunch of these names for their
advisory panel on their strategic planning. That actually made me optimist
on devising actual process of open and broad participation.
I do believe, however, that as civil society our role is to aim for
something bold and innovative, that is as inclusive as possible, but since
I am a very practical person, I look for models that have been showing some
success. Those scholars have mapped tons...and maybe some of us could look
and abstract proposals from those to set up multistakeholderism processes.
I also agree we should always aim at open standards - which for me have a
intrinsically interoperability characteristic.
Let's be bold folks, but with practical propositions  :-)
C



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
> articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
> there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
> goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
> and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
> pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
> I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
> about the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
> creating new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for
> civil society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong
> corporate sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for
> global action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
> require policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the
> Internet governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
> pressing our case in the most effective manner available to us at this
> point in time.  Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more
> direct (and democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I
> view the incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly
> NOT detrimental to our long-term objectives.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> + 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>>
>>> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>>> for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>>> delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine
>>> why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this
>>> point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to
>>> stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew:
>>>>
>>>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
>>>> should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are
>>>> the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>>>> the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>>>> for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>>>> other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>>>> should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation
>>>> has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>>>> policy making.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang:
>>>>
>>>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>>>> governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>>>> consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>>>> there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>>>> existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you
>>>> will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>>>> disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>>>
>>>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>>>> system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>>>> You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>>>> restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be
>>>> a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>>>> technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>>>> rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>>>> particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>>>> the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>>>> policy development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>>>> stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>>>> coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>>>> other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
>>>> by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
>>>> stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>>>> countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>>>> domination and capture.
>>>>
>>>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>>>> consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and
>>>> amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and
>>>> economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to
>>>> move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>>>> represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>>>
>>>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>>>> rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>>>> principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in
>>>> line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>>>> Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>>>> multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>>>> direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>>>> launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>>>> observatories etc.).
>>>>
>>>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>>>> Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>>>> regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>>>> outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>>>> Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>>>> Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
>>>> different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>>>> Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>>>> Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the
>>>> governments) will keep their own positions.
>>>>
>>>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>>>> determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>>>> escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>>>> all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>>>> principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
>>>> member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
>>>> is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
>>>> world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>>>> direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>>>> violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped
>>>> to reduce such violations.
>>>>
>>>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
>>>> moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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:
>      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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/7eba4d80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 10:13:56 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:13:56 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CF3E3116.1584C%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0d0b01cf3944$7f406640$7dc132c0$@gmail.com> <CF3E3116.1584C%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0d5e01cf394e$b2733240$175996c0$@gmail.com>

For those out there who might not be catching Andrew’s drift behind the buzz word barrage and portensious evoking of the Cold War (us guys with white hats and those guys with black hats) let me de-construct his various communications…

 

AP: And I fail to see how a hierarchical state based system of decision making – which is the alternative being proposed – answers your questions or as I prefer to think of it - offers me any sees of how my interests as a user will be taken care off.  That to me is the important question

 

MG: “a hierarchical state based system of decision making” popularly known to most of the world as “democracy”

 

MG: “my interests as a user will be taken care off” otherwise intelligible as “my interests as a privileged white Developed Country male living under the benign and enabling gaze of the GCHQ”

 

 

AP: The kind of governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet, to use Russia’s phrase, have no interest in my concerns whereas most civil society groups that I have see active in this space do.  So I’d like to see them at the table

 

MG: “governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet” i.e. everybody who doesn’t buy into my cuckoo cloud land ideal state of totally benign, selfless and public spirited “multi-stakeholders”—such as Internet tax dodgers Amazon and  Google, technical community stakeholders like the NSA,  various Google greenwashing NGO’s such as…,etc.etc.

 

 

AP: There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights

 

MG: “established hierarchical system among states” namely the UN and associated multilateral bodies where the writ of King Silicon Valley and the Internet Freedom crusaders has only partial sway i.e. the place where even the little people have a chance to be heard 

 

MG: “innovative” – innovation for who and whose benefit  http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/silicon-valleys-to-community-informatics-neighbourhoods/

 

MG: “bottom (up)” – the point of my questions – I don’t see any bottom up processes—a lot of networking of the already networked http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/847.htm and http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/if-multistakeholderism-had-prevailed-in-the-late-19thearly-20th-century-would-women-have-the-vote-would-we-still-have-slavery/

 

MG: “transparent” and ” accountable” hmmm http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/

 

MG: “open” – open for who and in whose benefit  http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/%E2%80%9Copen%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cnecessary%E2%80%9D-but-not-%E2%80%9Csufficient%E2%80%9D/

 

And in case anyone was wondering http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/

 

M

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:13 AM
To: michael gurstein; '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'parminder'; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

 

And I fail to see how a hierarchical state based system of decision making – which is the alternative being proposed – answers your questions or as I prefer to think of it - offers me any sees of how my interests as a user will be taken care off.  That to me is the important question

 

The kind of governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet, to use Russia’s phrase, have no interest in my concerns whereas most civil society groups that I have see active in this space do.  So I’d like to see them at the table

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 14:00
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "'\"Kleinwächter", "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: Alternatives?

 

Andrew, 

 

I fail to see how Wolfgang's discussion of MSism as an ideal type (using the narrowly technical issues addressed by the IETF as his example) addresses any of the reality based questions that I posed.

 

Perhaps you (or Wolfgang or others) could either indicate how Wolfgang's comments do address my questions or respond to them yourself.

 

As a reminder I'm copying them in below...

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

1.	What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good

a.	How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled
b.	Is this transparent
c.	What are the accountability mechanisms here
d.	Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority
e.	Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.	Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled 

a.	who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—
b.	can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 
c.	Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus
d.	Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this
e.	Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.	How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle 
4.	How is the very real danger of capture guarded against
5.	What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

Without dealing with the above and associated reality based questions you and the other MSist advocates are expecting folks to buy a pig in a poke… alright perhaps for some – the powerful and the networked but dangerous indeed for everyone else.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:47 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; michael gurstein; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

 

I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t think I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights

 

Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive

 

 

On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""

< <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

 

> 

>Andrew:

> 

>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments 

>should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they 

>are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

> 

> 

>Parminder

>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies 

>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This 

>is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, 

>IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got...

>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my 

>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to 

>help, but not do, policy making.

> 

> 

>Wolfgang:

> 

>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ 

>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to 

>reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated 

>that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an 

>already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The 

>only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an 

>agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

> 

>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial 

>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.

>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most 

>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This 

>will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with 

>no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for 

>individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic 

>development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job 

>opportunies and something more.

> 

>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - 

>the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder 

>policy development process where governments are just one (vey 

>important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to 

>communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among 

>themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their 

>legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you 

>need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - 

>in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and 

>non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

> 

>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough 

>consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and 

>amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and 

>economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it 

>helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority 

>which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

> 

>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder 

>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general 

>principles (which would allow also some governments to make 

>reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the 

>Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and 

>to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of 

>concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include 

>also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like 

>clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

> 

>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to 

>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via 

>bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment.

>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet 

>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a 

>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would 

>probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member 

>states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach.

>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular 

>the governments) will keep their own positions.

> 

>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural

>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an 

>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the 

>day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by 

>those set of principles, which will have the support not only by 

>governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.

>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not 

>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the 

>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not 

>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which 

>helped to reduce such violations.

> 

>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are 

>moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.

> 

> 

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/f7a306d5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Mar  6 10:48:04 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:48:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Just Net Coalition contribution on Principles for
 Netmundial.br
In-Reply-To: <20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>
References: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>
	<10CCDF21-6F90-4377-8BA9-2B789F44723C@hserus.net>
	<20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>
Message-ID: <20140306164804.61001c7e@quill>

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Norbert, it would help if a list of the current signatories to
> > this document (you, Indian NGOs ..) could be appended to the
> > document.
> 
> At the current stage what we have is a consensus decision to form the
> "Just Net Coalition" and a consensus decision to submit this document,
> but we haven't completed the process of working out the Terms of
> Reference or Charter (or whatever it'll get called) of Just Net
> Coalition nor of figuring out the coalition's precise initial
> composition (in the sense of who are organisational members and who
> are individual members).
> 
> But I absolutely agree, this needs to be sorted out ASAP, so that a
> “list of the current signatories” can indeed be appended.

In the meantime, here (attached) is the list of participants in the
meeting of 14/15 Feb where much of the development work for this
document took place, and where the end product of the work done there
(which is almost identical to the version which has now been published)
was approved by unanimous acclamation. There were others who wanted to
be there but could not come, but still participated in online
discussions around and about the meeting, including for developing the
“principles” submission to the NetMundial meeting (as well as an
“institutional roadmap” contribution, which will come out soon).

The meeting was organised by Third World Network, ActionAid, WWW 
Foundation, Free Software Law Centre, Free Software Movement of India, 
Knowledge Commons and IT for Change. Some of these organisers provided 
funds for the meeting as well. The rest of the funds came from NIXI,
the Internet Exchange of India. The latter had no role in organising the
event.

Greetings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: global_meeting_14th_15th_feb_2014_participant-list.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 26497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/73b76747/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 11:47:04 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:47:04 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>	<18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>	<09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>	<CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>	<CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>	<CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>	<CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>	<CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>	<53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>

I’m still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system
(democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism)
which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly questionable
since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
accountability “deficits”. 

 

The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging private
sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only this
but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over (“consensus
based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants etc.
etc. 

 

If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time
thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of. (That
the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism 12
times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of those
party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

 

+1

 

This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made about
the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and creating
new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe require
policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about pressing
our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in time.
Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
detrimental to our long-term objectives.

 

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,

jeanette

Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:

I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for
30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation
that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil
society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are
needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in
protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:


Andrew:

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in
the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole
source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).


Parminder
You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the
final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for
policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should
continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has
sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy
making.


Wolfgang:

The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there
is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing
(more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get
out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as
enhanced cooperation).

With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system
with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will
end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive
government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade
for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in
developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.

The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the
innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy
development process where governments are just one (vey important)
stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
domination and capture.

Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is
based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or
stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by
the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough
consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles
(which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with
the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with
regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road
map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories
etc.).

But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security
to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional
arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome
of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive
is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil,
South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will
keep their own positions.

However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all
the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to
reduce such violations.

If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/7fc571a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar  6 12:01:34 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:01:34 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@email.android.com>

How about democracy is supposed to be a national concept while we are dealing with transnational issues that involve  public but also lots of private resources? Thus, this is not about replacing democracy but enhancing some of its principles to the transnational sphere. Actually an old idea that now has found another concrete case of application. 
Jeanette 

On 6 March 2014 17:47:04 CET, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>I’m still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed
>system
>(democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
>considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
>Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke
>(multistakeholderism)
>which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
>development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly
>questionable
>since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
>accountability “deficits”. 
>
> 
>
>The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
>existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging
>private
>sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
>community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only
>this
>but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over
>(“consensus
>based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants
>etc.
>etc. 
>
> 
>
>If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending
>time
>thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
>processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
>participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
>would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
>reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of.
>(That
>the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism
>12
>times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of
>those
>party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
>
> 
>
>M
>
> 
>
>From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene
>Kimmelman
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
>To: Jeanette Hofmann
>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
>
> 
>
>+1
>
> 
>
>This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
>articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same
>goals,
>there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving
>those
>goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both
>philosophically
>and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described
>compelling
>pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed
>system.
>I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
>about
>the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
>creating
>new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
>society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
>sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
>action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
>require
>policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
>governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
>pressing
>our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in
>time.
>Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
>democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
>incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
>detrimental to our long-term objectives.
>
> 
>
>On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>wrote:
>
>+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>
>jeanette
>
>Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>
>I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>for
>30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>delegation
>that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why
>civil
>society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point,
>they are
>needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute
>in
>protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>Stephanie Perrin
>On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
>Andrew:
>
>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
>should in
>the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>sole
>source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>
>
>Parminder
>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>the
>final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>for
>policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>should
>continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has
>sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>policy
>making.
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to
>reach
>consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>there
>is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>existing
>(more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will
>get
>out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree"
>(as
>enhanced cooperation).
>
>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>system
>with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You
>will
>end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>restrictive
>government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a
>blockade
>for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
>economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
>freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular
>in
>developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.
>
>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>the
>innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>policy
>development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and
>with
>other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an
>issue
>by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more
>non-governmental
>stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>domination and capture.
>
>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>consensus is
>based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
>developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
>oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move
>(or
>stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>represented by
>the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>
>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>rough
>consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>principles
>(which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line
>with
>the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations
>with
>regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder
>road
>map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
>approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
>multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>observatories
>etc.).
>
>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>Security
>to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>regional
>arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>outcome
>of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look
>rather
>different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>Directive
>is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>Brazil,
>South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments)
>will
>keep their own positions.
>
>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the
>day all
>the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the
>UN
>member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.
>This
>is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save
>the
>world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which
>helped to
>reduce such violations.
>
>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
>moving
>backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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
>
> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 12:10:33 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:10:33 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@email.android.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
 <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com> <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uGKSP4awMUxYVXZhH3P5eAUz6hEL7oQWxB2Q9hJa8X+LA@mail.gmail.com>

I beg to differ: democracy is not a "national concept".
It is an abstract concept that comprises (in most liberal accounts) public
participation and open/free opposition through institutionalized channels.
Ascriptive democracy involves, also, capacity building in aspects related
to participation and opposition. The most concrete and known manifestations
of it occur within national polities. But it does not mean *per se *that
those abstract normative propositions cannot be operationalized on
transnational, international, global bases. I actually believe that that
(broad participation, opposition and public scrutiny of conflitcs, as well
as capacity building for those tasks) is just the case ahead of us in
relations to the future of INet Governance.

Regards
Diego






On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> How about democracy is supposed to be a national concept while we are
> dealing with transnational issues that involve  public but also lots of
> private resources? Thus, this is not about replacing democracy but
> enhancing some of its principles to the transnational sphere. Actually an
> old idea that now has found another concrete case of application.
> Jeanette
>
> On 6 March 2014 17:47:04 CET, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed
> >system
> >(democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
> >considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
> >Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke
> >(multistakeholderism)
> >which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
> >development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly
> >questionable
> >since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
> >accountability "deficits".
> >
> >
> >
> >The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
> >existing processes by various highly questionable actors--tax dodging
> >private
> >sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
> >community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only
> >this
> >but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over
> >("consensus
> >based") public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants
> >etc.
> >etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending
> >time
> >thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
> >processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
> >participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
> >would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
> >reasons for discarding democracy which we aren't being made aware of.
> >(That
> >the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism
> >12
> >times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of
> >those
> >party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
> >
> >
> >
> >M
> >
> >
> >
> >From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene
> >Kimmelman
> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
> >To: Jeanette Hofmann
> >Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
> >
> >
> >
> >+1
> >
> >
> >
> >This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
> >articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same
> >goals,
> >there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving
> >those
> >goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both
> >philosophically
> >and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described
> >compelling
> >pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed
> >system.
> >I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
> >about
> >the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
> >creating
> >new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
> >society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
> >sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
> >action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
> >require
> >policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
> >governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
> >pressing
> >our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in
> >time.
> >Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
> >democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
> >incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
> >detrimental to our long-term objectives.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> >wrote:
> >
> >+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
> >
> >jeanette
> >
> >Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
> >
> >I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
> >for
> >30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
> >delegation
> >that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why
> >civil
> >society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point,
> >they are
> >needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute
> >in
> >protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
> >Stephanie Perrin
> >On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> >
> >Andrew:
> >
> >Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
> >should in
> >the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
> >sole
> >source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
> >
> >
> >Parminder
> >You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
> >the
> >final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
> >for
> >policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
> >other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
> >should
> >continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has
> >sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
> >policy
> >making.
> >
> >
> >Wolfgang:
> >
> >The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
> >governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to
> >reach
> >consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
> >there
> >is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
> >existing
> >(more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will
> >get
> >out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree"
> >(as
> >enhanced cooperation).
> >
> >With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
> >system
> >with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You
> >will
> >end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
> >restrictive
> >government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a
> >blockade
> >for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
> >economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
> >freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular
> >in
> >developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.
> >
> >The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
> >the
> >innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
> >policy
> >development process where governments are just one (vey important)
> >stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
> >coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and
> >with
> >other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an
> >issue
> >by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more
> >non-governmental
> >stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
> >countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
> >domination and capture.
> >
> >Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
> >consensus is
> >based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
> >developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
> >oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move
> >(or
> >stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
> >represented by
> >the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
> >
> >The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
> >rough
> >consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
> >principles
> >(which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line
> >with
> >the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations
> >with
> >regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder
> >road
> >map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
> >approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
> >multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
> >observatories
> >etc.).
> >
> >But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
> >Security
> >to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
> >regional
> >arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
> >outcome
> >of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
> >Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
> >Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look
> >rather
> >different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
> >Directive
> >is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
> >Brazil,
> >South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments)
> >will
> >keep their own positions.
> >
> >However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
> >determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
> >escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the
> >day all
> >the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
> >principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the
> >UN
> >member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.
> >This
> >is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save
> >the
> >world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
> >direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
> >violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which
> >helped to
> >reduce such violations.
> >
> >If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
> >moving
> >backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 <http://ufrgs.br>*
diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
Cell # +55-51-8108-1098
Skype: diegocanabarro

*GT Governança Digital*

*Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo (CEGOV)*

Campus do Vale, prédio 43322 - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500
Porto Alegre / RS CEP 91509-900
Fone: +55 51 3308.9860 / 3308.9934 / Site: *www.cegov.ufrgs.br
<http://www.cegov.ufrgs.br/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/055a3067/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Mar  6 12:32:22 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:32:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@email.android.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com> <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@em
 ail.android.com>
Message-ID: <1A236580-3BE4-4402-8076-282E43746895@theglobaljournal.net>

Where the hell have you got that idea that Democracy was geographically rooted to land and borders. It reminds me an argument by Avri saying that outside of its territory a country was losing its  sovereignty, and therefore no Democracy could have a say outside of its territory... Many people on that list are just wondering what are these arguments all about.


Democracy is primarily a concept of governance, and has no geographical limitation at its philosophical inception. Anyone is free to think Democracy, its values, its principal out of any territory. You forget the original meaning:  Democracy is firstly about DEMOS (People!). Then you look at where all of them 'belong' and established appropriate mechanisms in order to exercise Democratic principles, accepted by these people.

Democracy does not equate sovereignty. Any middle age kingdom had its sovereignty. But, sorry again to denounce the fancy arguments made by Avri et al, international law has often been brought to many countries, by Democracies. International law is therefore very often the fruit of Democratic values and initiative long supported by Democracies. They do have to fight the non Democracies to make them understand why this or that treaty would be good for them, or face the consequences. We know that. So Democratic values and principles are much more universal than your national argument suggest. No Democratic thinking outside the boundary of each sovereignty? The answer is crystal clear.

Now, an even more serious concern raises out of your "Enhanced Democracy" bizarrerie. I know that we disagree over critical points about the future of Internet governance, and I cannot doubt your sincerity to consider yourself as a true Democrat (hopefully) but the walk you want us to walk reminds me many wrongs turns in History. When the fascists, nazis or totalitarians wanted to reject Democracy, they would either denounce it as a "non-working", "non-efficient" system, or they would sell an idea that their "model" would be the next best stage of Democracy. With representatives or spoke-persons so dedicated to the common good, that they could not failed the people. Fascism was first a progressive concept at the very beginning before turning to radicalism and intolerance. We know where this "I know what is good for you - it is too complex anyway for you to understand - has lead us from over times.

So speaking of enhanced Democratic values or principles is always making a lot of people nervous. And I do understand that. Like them, I reject ideas of "enhanced Democracy". It is the apprenti-sorcier at his best. No, thanks for me. True Democracy is just fine. And it can perfectly be thought at whatever size and scale of people (Demos) you want to think.


Le 6 mars 2014 à 18:01, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> How about democracy is supposed to be a national concept while we are dealing with transnational issues that involve  public but also lots of private resources? Thus, this is not about replacing democracy but enhancing some of its principles to the transnational sphere. Actually an old idea that now has found another concrete case of application. 
> Jeanette 
> 
> On 6 March 2014 17:47:04 CET, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I’m still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed
>> system
>> (democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
>> considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
>> Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke
>> (multistakeholderism)
>> which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
>> development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly
>> questionable
>> since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
>> accountability “deficits”. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
>> existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging
>> private
>> sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
>> community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only
>> this
>> but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over
>> (“consensus
>> based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants
>> etc.
>> etc. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending
>> time
>> thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
>> processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
>> participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
>> would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
>> reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of.
>> (That
>> the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism
>> 12
>> times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of
>> those
>> party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene
>> Kimmelman
>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
>> To: Jeanette Hofmann
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
>> articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same
>> goals,
>> there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving
>> those
>> goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both
>> philosophically
>> and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described
>> compelling
>> pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed
>> system.
>> I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
>> about
>> the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
>> creating
>> new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
>> society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
>> sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
>> action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
>> require
>> policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
>> governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
>> pressing
>> our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in
>> time.
>> Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
>> democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
>> incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
>> detrimental to our long-term objectives.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> + 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>> 
>> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>> for
>> 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>> delegation
>> that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why
>> civil
>> society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point,
>> they are
>> needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute
>> in
>> protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Andrew:
>> 
>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
>> should in
>> the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>> sole
>> source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>> 
>> 
>> Parminder
>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>> the
>> final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>> for
>> policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>> other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>> should
>> continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has
>> sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>> policy
>> making.
>> 
>> 
>> Wolfgang:
>> 
>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>> governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to
>> reach
>> consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>> there
>> is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>> existing
>> (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will
>> get
>> out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree"
>> (as
>> enhanced cooperation).
>> 
>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>> system
>> with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You
>> will
>> end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>> restrictive
>> government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a
>> blockade
>> for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
>> economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
>> freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular
>> in
>> developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.
>> 
>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>> the
>> innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>> policy
>> development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>> stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>> coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and
>> with
>> other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an
>> issue
>> by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more
>> non-governmental
>> stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>> countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>> domination and capture.
>> 
>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>> consensus is
>> based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
>> developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
>> oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move
>> (or
>> stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>> represented by
>> the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>> 
>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>> rough
>> consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>> principles
>> (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line
>> with
>> the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations
>> with
>> regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder
>> road
>> map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
>> approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
>> multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>> observatories
>> etc.).
>> 
>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>> Security
>> to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>> regional
>> arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>> outcome
>> of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>> Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>> Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look
>> rather
>> different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>> Directive
>> is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>> Brazil,
>> South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments)
>> will
>> keep their own positions.
>> 
>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>> determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>> escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the
>> day all
>> the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>> principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the
>> UN
>> member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.
>> This
>> is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save
>> the
>> world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>> direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>> violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which
>> helped to
>> reduce such violations.
>> 
>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
>> moving
>> backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/ce5bc71c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 14:34:54 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:34:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
 beyond.
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9BxT_X2uLwXLUO=mY0YMAYOSMj+Vg18npx-cFdVttneA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-76o1NiJhJjvpctEtHiE59V6kup4FCWmCJwue129+UGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89343ED67B1A4A75A635C1C229A79AF0@Toshiba> <7e50b0e8cff688525fe99cc4d1190b35.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <8a59de14b38347219c21baeae068264f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v8cMopzePP-P3SLJpOVOh-PzDx5Yre5m=zhVoE9USii4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <40f73e8f88b54ee3950975abec551b73.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
 <53156986.1080305@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-MoP55m_F06iDxBUAPP01KLRjLRFuZfQq+WuCW06OcgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53166F9E.5070301@gmx.net> <CACTo+v8L-RyPN6rpRjNdt9TncO_f9APVc6O7Q597ibFO6o55Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9BxT_X2uLwXLUO=mY0YMAYOSMj+Vg18npx-cFdVttneA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-O7JcsVaqf8vyRWxjYriBqTbyv3S_iGwyqUEBFPsde+A@mail.gmail.com>

All,

Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members'
contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3
--amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to
propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in
which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation
as crispy as possible if you can.

Let's do this by tomorrow Friday at 21:00 UTC/GMT the latest (in a little
more than 24 hrs).

IGC STATEMENT

The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to thank the organizers of the
NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings
through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time,
the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental
principles to guide any Internet governance processes and decisions in the
future.

1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.

5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
related to worldwide internet governance.

6- All decision making processes must ensure the inclusion of not just all
stakeholders but also all regions of the world in an equitable manner.
Particularly, any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional
field and mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current
configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of
USG and the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the inclusion of
all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a truly global cultural
diversity in approaches to technical and policy problems.

---- end of STATEMENT---

Thank you,

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/d5337c28/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 14:37:39 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:37:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>

[Thought I should change the subject line]

All,

Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members'
contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3
--amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to
propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in
which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation
as crispy as possible if you can.

Let's do this by tomorrow Friday at 21:00 UTC/GMT the latest (in a little
more than 24 hrs).

IGC STATEMENT

The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to thank the organizers of the
NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings
through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time,
the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental
principles to guide any Internet governance processes and decisions in the
future.

1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.

5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
related to worldwide internet governance.

6- All decision making processes must ensure the inclusion of not just all
stakeholders but also all regions of the world in an equitable manner.
Particularly, any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional
field and mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current
configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of
USG and the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the inclusion of
all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a truly global cultural
diversity in approaches to technical and policy problems.

---- end of STATEMENT---

Thank you,

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/afeb713d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 14:38:41 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:38:41 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
 <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjvHC0rgO5N_4dfVjkA_2=w3+YsD00TmdcfF5c858VbkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm still waiting
>

If you continue to use this hectoring badgering style of discourse, you may
be waiting for Godot!




> for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system (democracy) but
> one where there is at least a track record, very considerable theoretical
> development, an enormous ecology concerning Transparency and Accountability
> with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism) which has no (applicable) track
> record, absolutely no theoretical development or underpinnings, and whose
> only ecology is highly questionable since it suffers from, shall we say,
> significant transparency and accountability "deficits".
>


Obviously you haven't participated in any of the truly MS fora in which I
have engaged.  If you had, or had bothered to do some research, you would
find no lack of transparency or accountability.   I note that you are in
the ARIN region, why don't you noodle around that website to see what you
can find in regard to lack of transparency, etc.  I think you will be
hard-pressed to find any "deficits" therein.

Never one to shy from flame-bait, the most obvious rationale is that MS
processes have delivered
the current Internet, which most of us think is a pretty useful thing.


>
>
> The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
> existing processes by various highly questionable actors--tax dodging
> private sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted)
> tech community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not
> only this but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over
> ("consensus based") public policy outputs to those self-same private sector
> giants etc. etc.
>


The above makes zero sense.  I thought you felt that the status quo was
fine for lots of folks who you dislike, now you are saying they are
impatient with existing processes?


>
>
> If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time
> thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
> processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
> participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
> would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
> reasons for discarding democracy which we aren't being made aware of.
>


Some of us see MSism as deepening democracy, but you can't accept the
sincerity of others positions on this.  Instead, you fire random, vague
accusations of corruption.



>  (That the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes
> MSism 12 times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various
> of those party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
>


Maybe those who wrote it feel that MSism IS a form of democracy.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/d8325342/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Mar  6 14:42:49 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 06:42:49 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE75869346F344D8AFACFE9C394CD318@Toshiba>

Yes from me – but may be 1 should be “same human rights as they are entitled to off-line”

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 6:37 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams 
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission

[Thought I should change the subject line]


All, 

Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members' contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3 --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation as crispy as possible if you can.

Let's do this by tomorrow Friday at 21:00 UTC/GMT the latest (in a little more than 24 hrs). 

IGC STATEMENT

The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to thank the organizers of the NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time, the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental principles to guide any Internet governance processes and decisions in the future.  

1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic development.


5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance. 

6- All decision making processes must ensure the inclusion of not just all stakeholders but also all regions of the world in an equitable manner. Particularly, any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional field and mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of USG and the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the inclusion of all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a truly global cultural diversity in approaches to technical and policy problems. 

---- end of STATEMENT---

Thank you,

Mawaki




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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/7cfeb3bc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Mar  6 15:08:43 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:08:43 +1100
Subject: [governance] my IANA roadmap submission
Message-ID: <68239F93DEB743ED8A94643ADF38216C@Toshiba>

Below is the text I have forwarded as an individual to Brazil meeting after discussion here and on other lists.
It does not create a perfect world. But if adopted, which is achievable in the current climate, it might create a slightly better one. Thank you to everyone who contributed.
The link is at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-internalisation-of-the-former-iana-functions-under-a-multistakeholder-governance-model-involving-icann-and-associated-technical-organisations/105
Ian Peter
Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions under a multistakeholder governance model involving  ICANN and associated technical organisations.
This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.



Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before most current internet governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. The emergence of a trusted global body to take over these functions was envisaged at the time and this submission suggests that we can now proceed to transfer remaining functions to a multistakeholder model of management.



ROADMAP



This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions (including their oversight), though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate identity and would more productively be merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN and associated technical bodies. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.



In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.



1.       1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the multistakeholder model of internet governance, including among other considerations the following criteria:



(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference;



(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone;



(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function;



(d) support of a single unified root zone; and



(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."



2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.



3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.



4. The solution must have the following characteristics



(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks



(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .



(c) is an inclusive model



(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/2e38565f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar  6 15:39:41 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:09:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CE75869346F344D8AFACFE9C394CD318@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com> <CE75869346F344D8AFACFE9C394CD318@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <2F19D16C-CED5-42F1-9CB3-F23724D74B26@hserus.net>

+1 after incorporating Ian's suggestion 

--srs (iPad)

> On 07-Mar-2014, at 1:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes from me – but may be 1 should be “same human rights as they are entitled to off-line”
>  
> From: Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 6:37 AM
> To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
>  
> [Thought I should change the subject line]
> 
> All,
>  
> Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members' contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3 --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation as crispy as possible if you can.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/db631a43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 16:29:59 2014
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:29:59 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjvHC0rgO5N_4dfVjkA_2=w3+YsD00TmdcfF5c858VbkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjvHC0rgO5N_4dfVjkA_2=w3+YsD00Tmd
 cfF5c858VbkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B8F6D17C-4A50-481D-A6EF-1B0F659B12B1@gmail.com>

McTim,

"MSism has delivered the current Internet." Wasn't it Godot himself? What has really produce MSism, in fact? This is a very good question.

"MSism has delivered the current Internet."This is no way a fact. Merely an opinion. 

Scientists, techies, business people did their best with different interests at stake. A gentle and productive chaos. Bigger and more powerful everyday until salesman and cops had establish their own game (after 1998, I would say).

I thought, reading WK, that it was Kodi Annan who invented the labeling MSism back in 2004 (see WK's editorial  in MIND 2011, document edited with the support of Google).
Others, more realistic think that MSism's father was Freeman (read his Strategic Management : A stakeholder approach by R. Edward Freeman, 1984, Boston, Pitman.
Pr. Schwab has claimed repeatedly that he was among the very first to introduce MSism through his forum.
Which MSism is yours? Do you a document presenting it? That is basically the question from Michael, in particular when MSism is to be granted the status of model of governance. Lots of troubling questions.

If the MSism that we see today was already in action at the very beginning of the Internet, I feel that we would have nothing in our hands to day. I am part of the people who believe that MSism is greatly responsible for having made no advance to rebalance the asymmetric role of the current tenants of Internet. By paying people with words, uneven participation, absence of legitimacy, self appointment, flaw concept (equal footing, mon oeil!) and refusing to be part of a more resilient governance - even though it would challenge the powerful Internet Barons- they have failed the users and the citizens.

We are many to be interested by some good answers about MSism and its outcome. 

Was IGF run according to some MSism model? Why is it then, that IGF  produced very little or no concrete results or progress regarding Internet governance? (what is it that was produced?)  Why is it that it is not in good shape today, until some people will decide to put some big money in it, if they believe that IGF can be of use for them. IGF+  would cover ICANN+ back, and make sure that the "soft power of MSism" and its priesthood will march on and prevail.

Thanks

JC

Nota Bene: I like your understatement about the "highly questionable actors". This type of writing is the clear expression of a no respect attitude for people in disagreement with the mainstream MSism. Forging a consensus requires much more than this type of understatement. With all due respect.




Le 6 mars 2014 à 20:38, McTim a écrit :

> Michael,
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m still waiting
> 
> 
> If you continue to use this hectoring badgering style of discourse, you may be waiting for Godot!
> 
> 
>  
> for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system (democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism) which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly questionable since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and accountability “deficits”.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you haven't participated in any of the truly MS fora in which I have engaged.  If you had, or had bothered to do some research, you would find no lack of transparency or accountability.   I note that you are in the ARIN region, why don't you noodle around that website to see what you can find in regard to lack of transparency, etc.  I think you will be hard-pressed to find any "deficits" therein.
> 
> Never one to shy from flame-bait, the most obvious rationale is that MS processes have delivered 
> the current Internet, which most of us think is a pretty useful thing.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging private sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only this but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over (“consensus based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> The above makes zero sense.  I thought you felt that the status quo was fine for lots of folks who you dislike, now you are saying they are impatient with existing processes?
>  
> 
>  
> 
> If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us see MSism as deepening democracy, but you can't accept the sincerity of others positions on this.  Instead, you fire random, vague accusations of corruption.  
> 
>  
> (That the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism 12 times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of those party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those who wrote it feel that MSism IS a form of democracy.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/20572157/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 16:32:19 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 21:32:19 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <2F19D16C-CED5-42F1-9CB3-F23724D74B26@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CE75869346F344D8AFACFE9C394CD318@Toshiba> <2F19D16C-CED5-42F1-9CB3-F23724D74B26@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CADFgh11Y7hC+P_q5--KdsnkLJjHdc1GnWAMuudiwexCP_1UFGA@mail.gmail.com>

+1


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> +1 after incorporating Ian's suggestion
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 07-Mar-2014, at 1:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  Yes from me - but may be 1 should be "same human rights as they are
> entitled to off-line"
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2014 6:37 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Deirdre
> Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
>
>  [Thought I should change the subject line]
>
> All,
>
> Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members'
> contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3
> --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to
> propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in
> which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation
> as crispy as possible if you can.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/afbc056b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Thu Mar  6 19:29:01 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:29:01 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@email.android.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com> <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@em
 ail.android.com>
Message-ID: <C851A5FB-37BE-4D30-AB05-88745177C1E6@Malcolm.id.au>

On 7 Mar 2014, at 1:01 am, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> How about democracy is supposed to be a national concept while we are dealing with transnational issues that involve  public but also lots of private resources? Thus, this is not about replacing democracy but enhancing some of its principles to the transnational sphere. Actually an old idea that now has found another concrete case of application. 

Exactly.  Avri also posted a good submission on this titled, aptly enough, "Multstakeholder model as a form of democracy", which is at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/multstakeholder-model-as-a-form-of-democracy/117.  My own personal submission at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/an-extended-role-for-the-igf-in-filling-the-gaps-in-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/126 (the formatting has been a bit mangled, sorry) may also be of interest.

I have resisted engaging in this back and forth, but does anyone else feel that Michael has already made his position quite clear and that it is no longer productive to continue berating others who don't happen to agree with him?

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/fc53efb8/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Thu Mar  6 20:02:06 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:02:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Y7hC+P_q5--KdsnkLJjHdc1GnWAMuudiwexCP_1UFGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CE75869346F344D8AFACFE9C394CD318@Toshiba> <2F19D16C-CED5-42F1-9CB3-F23724D74B26@hserus.net>
 <CADFgh11Y7hC+P_q5--KdsnkLJjHdc1GnWAMuudiwexCP_1UFGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKgZtD7RFtw00Mzj5c6EVyRTr4awC-icWU45ecEeZNLKPA@mail.gmail.com>

 Thank you all, I support this statement with Ian's friendly ammendment.

izumi


2014-03-07 6:32 GMT+09:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>
>> +1 after incorporating Ian's suggestion
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 07-Mar-2014, at 1:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Yes from me - but may be 1 should be "same human rights as they are
>> entitled to off-line"
>>
>>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2014 6:37 AM
>> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Deirdre
>> Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
>>
>>  [Thought I should change the subject line]
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members'
>> contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3
>> --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to
>> propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in
>> which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation
>> as crispy as possible if you can.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/cec350a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joy at apc.org  Thu Mar  6 21:35:06 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:35:06 +1300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5319305A.7040301@apc.org>

Hi Parminder - you are correct, thank you, yes, the statement was
developed on the Best Bits list for endorsement by those who choose to
do so.
I note that many examples of multi-stakeholder internet related public
policy making have been made in submissions to the WGEC and elsewhere.
There seems to be a rather circular argument as to whether these
actually relate to public policy or not, depending on the definition of
such.
It is of course possible to endorse statements in part - that may be one
option for those who object to particular aspects, but of course that is
entirely up to them.
Regards
Joy
On 7/03/2014 1:02 a.m., parminder wrote:
> Joy
>
> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>
> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov 
> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as
> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>
> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>
>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>
> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making,
> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
> statements.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy
> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on
> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
> withdrawn. Thanks.
>
> /*
> */
> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>
>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>     internet governance.
>>
>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes
>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been
>> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes:
>> these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair,
>> the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says,
>> taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance
>> can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including
>> human rights.
>>
>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>
>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>> relevant to internet governance
>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>> doing so; and
>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
>> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
>> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>
>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>> which is relevant to internet governance
>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>
>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>
>>
>> Joy
>> Joy
>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the
>>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>>
>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>
>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
>>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
>>> and international organisations. No single government should have a
>>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>
>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>
>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines
>>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role
>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>
>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
>>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
>>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But
>>> we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that
>>> no one government should dominate - but in the context of the
>>> involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all
>>>>>>> points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two
>>>>>>> hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different
>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If
>>>>>>> so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role
>>>>>>> (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please
>>>>>>> address this point specifically. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to
>>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how
>>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non
>>>>> gov actors.... 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this
>>>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>
>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
>>>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>>>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>>>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>
>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>
>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>
>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>>>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>
>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>>>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me
>>>> to stay away from this doc.
>>>>
>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to
>>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin
>>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It
>>>> is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the
>>>> Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>
>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
>>>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>>>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
>>>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it
>>>> matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present
>>>> of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the
>>>> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
>>>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this
>>>>> point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key
>>>>> point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>
>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>>>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect
>>>>> and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected
>>>>> and that relevant national legislation complies with their
>>>>> obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure
>>>>> that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil
>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and
>>>>> notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at
>>>>> community level. The private sector and particularly the technical
>>>>> community significantly influence and encourage the development,
>>>>> distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should
>>>>> continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for
>>>>> economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to
>>>>> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge
>>>>> society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions,
>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/05c05657/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/05c05657/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 21:51:38 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:51:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Y7hC+P_q5--KdsnkLJjHdc1GnWAMuudiwexCP_1UFGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE75869346F344D8AFACFE9C394CD318@Toshiba>
	<2F19D16C-CED5-42F1-9CB3-F23724D74B26@hserus.net>
	<CADFgh11Y7hC+P_q5--KdsnkLJjHdc1GnWAMuudiwexCP_1UFGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeGfMKv+pr66ttOEscaScx5HHXKBPX3vDRH_i6UtKYz0_g@mail.gmail.com>

+1 too (with Ian's suggestion)

Regards,

Ephraim Percy Kenyanito.

Author| Researcher| Humanitarian|

Cellular: (+254)-786-19-19-30/ (+254)-751-804-120

Skype: ekenyanito

Website:http://about.me/ekenyanito

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ekenyanito
On Mar 7, 2014 12:33 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>
>> +1 after incorporating Ian's suggestion
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 07-Mar-2014, at 1:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Yes from me - but may be 1 should be "same human rights as they are
>> entitled to off-line"
>>
>>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2014 6:37 AM
>> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Deirdre
>> Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
>>
>>  [Thought I should change the subject line]
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members'
>> contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3
>> --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to
>> propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in
>> which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation
>> as crispy as possible if you can.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/fb31aceb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 23:20:22 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:20:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [ciresearchers] Global Access to the Internet
 for All (GAIA) is an IRTF initiative
In-Reply-To: <0b6701cf38ff$25016ca0$6f0445e0$@gmail.com>
References: <23694649.9155.1394067909542.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba04-app>
 <F81A2CE4-EDF6-491C-A553-37DC1C43367F@1st-mile.org> <0b6701cf38ff$25016ca0$6f0445e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjsN9CujgA512LHhai+t=WbA+8PoBHXObh7A+QXJ2wtcg@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:44 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> This was just sent to the Community Informatics elist by an old
> friend/colleague who has been working in the grassroots ICT trenches since
> there were such and probably before (currently mostly with  US Amerindian
> folks in New Mexico...
>
>
>
> It rather sums up my response to Andrew (and I'm looking forward to
> Andrew's response to me... i.e. it is isn't simply about substituting one
> inadequate system of governance for another one which seems to have its own
> (and potentially worse sets of inadequacies and limitations) but rather of
> finding ways forward to deepen and enrich what we already have with what we
> now have come into possession of...
>
>
>


I agree completely with what you write above.  However, I think that you
feel that the Westphalian system of "democracy" is what we "have now",
while many of us on these lists feel that MSism is what we "have now".



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/239872ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Mar  6 23:43:40 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:43:40 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>

Thanks Mawaki,

I'm kind of surprised there's nothing on transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and meaningful participation. 

Another friendly amendment:

Internet governance institutions and processes should be open and inclusive, they should be bottom-up and consensus-based in their approach to policy development.  Internet governance institutions and processes should be transparent, accountable, and enable the meaningful participation of all stakeholders.

Adam



On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:37 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> [Thought I should change the subject line]
> 
> All,
> 
> Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members' contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3 --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation as crispy as possible if you can.
> 
> Let's do this by tomorrow Friday at 21:00 UTC/GMT the latest (in a little more than 24 hrs). 
> 
> IGC STATEMENT
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to thank the organizers of the NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time, the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental principles to guide any Internet governance processes and decisions in the future.  
> 
> 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> 
> 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources.
> 
> 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or privileged position.
> 
> 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic development.
> 
> 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance. 
> 
> 6- All decision making processes must ensure the inclusion of not just all stakeholders but also all regions of the world in an equitable manner. Particularly, any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional field and mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of USG and the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the inclusion of all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a truly global cultural diversity in approaches to technical and policy problems. 
> 
> ---- end of STATEMENT---
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Mar  7 00:37:45 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 00:37:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <B8F6D17C-4A50-481D-A6EF-1B0F659B12B1@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
 <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjvHC0rgO5N_4dfVjkA_2=w3+YsD00TmdcfF5c858VbkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <B8F6D17C-4A50-481D-A6EF-1B0F659B12B1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiBRSA7gzaQ0R1OTF-Bx=-V1S4a9EXCvzrSUoGF8cwP0w@mail.gmail.com>

I can't parse much of what you write below, but I will reply to the stuff I
can understand:


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <
jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:


>
>
Was IGF run according to some MSism model? Why is it then, that IGF
>  produced very little or no concrete results or progress regarding Internet
> governance?
>


because it wasn't meant to produce concrete results.



> (what is it that was produced?)
>


greater understanding.



> Nota Bene: I like your understatement about the "highly questionable
> actors".
>


It was MG's language, not mine.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/d76b19b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Mar  7 05:10:48 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:10:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>

Dear all

I think it is not so clear cut.

We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have
opportunities to make them more democratic.

I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who
is very active in CGI.br.

I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use
Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was
primarily for policy shaping.

He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body
that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these
lists can give examples.

CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that
is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public
policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.

Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but
it is multi-stakeholder.

Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
different parts of government is represented which his important.
Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.

It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public
policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond
the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public
consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.

>From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to
be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it
does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also
propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in
an inclusive MS space.

Anriette


On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
> Joy
>
> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>
> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov 
> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as
> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>
> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>
>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>
> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making,
> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
> statements.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy
> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on
> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
> withdrawn. Thanks.
>
> /*
> */
> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>
>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>     internet governance.
>>
>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes
>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been
>> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes:
>> these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair,
>> the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says,
>> taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance
>> can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including
>> human rights.
>>
>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>
>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>> relevant to internet governance
>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>> doing so; and
>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
>> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
>> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>
>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>> which is relevant to internet governance
>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>
>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>
>>
>> Joy
>> Joy
>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the
>>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>>
>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>
>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
>>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
>>> and international organisations. No single government should have a
>>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>
>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>
>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines
>>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role
>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>
>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
>>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
>>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But
>>> we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that
>>> no one government should dominate - but in the context of the
>>> involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all
>>>>>>> points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two
>>>>>>> hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different
>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If
>>>>>>> so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role
>>>>>>> (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please
>>>>>>> address this point specifically. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to
>>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how
>>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non
>>>>> gov actors.... 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this
>>>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>
>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
>>>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>>>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>>>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>
>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>
>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>
>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>>>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>
>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>>>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me
>>>> to stay away from this doc.
>>>>
>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to
>>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin
>>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It
>>>> is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the
>>>> Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>
>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
>>>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>>>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
>>>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it
>>>> matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present
>>>> of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the
>>>> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
>>>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this
>>>>> point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key
>>>>> point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>
>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>>>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect
>>>>> and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected
>>>>> and that relevant national legislation complies with their
>>>>> obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure
>>>>> that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil
>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and
>>>>> notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at
>>>>> community level. The private sector and particularly the technical
>>>>> community significantly influence and encourage the development,
>>>>> distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should
>>>>> continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for
>>>>> economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to
>>>>> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge
>>>>> society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions,
>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/e8af313c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Mar  7 05:18:44 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:18:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Contribution to NetMundial
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYroSjZLPFS1W9v2MGXq0VUae8CFQuCn9dohrrUKBJ8aeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Here attached is the contribution I made to the Brazil meeting as an
individual. All opinions are welcome.

Caveat: inter-paragraph space in the NetMundial site is rather
unpredictable.

Louis
- - -


*Internet Governance; what next ?*
Abstract.

Internet Governance has been the topic of endless discussion since the WSIS
preparation was launched in 2001. Most States insist on having equal say in
decisions bearing not only on technical matters, but also on public policy,
and economic and societal matters, at both national and international
level. However, the United States Government (USG) remains fully determined
to retain unilateral control over the internet. While discussions may go on
for any number of years, countries and citizens around the world cannot
afford to remain sitting ducks unable to control their future. This paper
explores possible actions they may take, without the USG approval, to
protect their human rights and sovereignty, and to acquire some bargaining
power in the internet realpolitik.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/40200095/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 140211_next_governance_v2.3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 115206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/40200095/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jovank at diplomacy.edu  Fri Mar  7 06:04:29 2014
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:04:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Webinar on EC Communication on Internet Governance (in
 one hour)
Message-ID: <742757C1-D220-44CB-9212-EF6E51D5910C@diplomacy.edu>

Colleagues,

In one hour (1pm CET), Diplo will run a webinar on the recent European Commission's communication, with Andrea Glorioso and Michael Niebel, from the European Commission’s Task Force on Internet Policy Development which developed the proposal. We can discuss the proposal with Andrea and Michael during the webinar. For announcement and registration please click here.

We will have more webinars with views on the main IG players in the next few months. 

Best,
Jovan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/3ac71915/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Mar  7 09:09:57 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:09:57 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Contribution to NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYroSjZLPFS1W9v2MGXq0VUae8CFQuCn9dohrrUKBJ8aeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYroSjZLPFS1W9v2MGXq0VUae8CFQuCn9dohrrUKBJ8aeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <714025154.12479.1394201397439.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e24>

Thanks, dear Louis

 

 

for this submitted document.

Not only is it a valuable contribution for a future CS IG statement, but it is also a very instructive (didactic) document for actually understanding what's on stake.

 

Friendly greetings

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 07/03/14 11:22
> De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" 
> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , workshop at net-equality.org
> Copie à : bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> Objet : [governance] Contribution to NetMundial
> 
>
Hi all,
> 
> Here attached is the contribution I made to the Brazil meeting as an individual. All opinions are welcome.
> 
> Caveat: inter-paragraph space in the NetMundial site is rather unpredictable.
> 
> Louis
> - - -
> 
> Internet Governance; what next ?
> 
> Abstract.
> 
> Internet Governance has been the topic of endless discussion since the WSIS preparation was launched in 2001. Most States insist on having equal say in decisions bearing not only on technical matters, but also on public policy, and economic and societal matters, at both national and international level. However, the United States Government (USG) remains fully determined to retain unilateral control over the internet. While discussions may go on for any number of years, countries and citizens around the world cannot afford to remain sitting ducks unable to control their future. This paper explores possible actions they may take, without the USG approval, to protect their human rights and sovereignty, and to acquire some bargaining power in the internet realpolitik.
> 
>



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

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

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

>
> [ 140211_next_governance_v2.3.pdf (155.0 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/fb2bc7cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 09:55:15 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:55:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>

 Thanks, folks.

Adam, I was under the impression that those principles were implied across
some of the more pointed formulation that Louis proposed, but that may be
too quick a reading of my part and I am happy to clearly name those
principles you mention.

So, following is the interim status of the IGC draft statement (while
including the friendly amendments so far, I have added para. 4 and
reshuffled the rest of the text so as to make it run a little smoother.)

STATEMENT


The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) wishes to thank the organizers of the
NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings
through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time,
the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental
principles to guide any Internet governance processes and decisions in the
future.



1- Internet governance institutions and processes should be open and
inclusive. They should be bottom-up and consensus-based in their approach
to policy development.  Internet governance institutions and processes
should be transparent, accountable, and enable the meaningful participation
of all stakeholders.



2- All Internet governance decision making processes must ensure the
inclusion of not just all stakeholders but also all regions of the world in
an equitable manner. As a result, a special effort must be engaged in order
to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of
resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet
governance.



3- Any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional field and
mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current
configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of
US Government and of the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the
effective inclusion of all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a
truly global cultural diversity in approaches to technical and policy
problems.



4- The technical community working on core protocols and technical
standards of the Internet should seek a broad understanding of the societal
implications of their design decisions and carefully weigh in the
advantages of the technological capabilities they are enabling in light of
their potential of adverse effects on individual users' freedom and
liberties. This should be done with a view to minimizing outcomes that
continuously erode said freedom and liberties, leaving the Internet user
vulnerable to all sorts of abuse.



5 - Namely, whether it is by virtue of technical design or by policy
provisions, on-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they are
entitled to off-line.

6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

7- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

8- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.

---- end of STATEMENT ------

 Thanks,

Mawaki





On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Thanks Mawaki,
>
> I'm kind of surprised there's nothing on transparency, accountability,
> inclusiveness and meaningful participation.
>
> Another friendly amendment:
>
> Internet governance institutions and processes should be open and
> inclusive, they should be bottom-up and consensus-based in their approach
> to policy development.  Internet governance institutions and processes
> should be transparent, accountable, and enable the meaningful participation
> of all stakeholders.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:37 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> > [Thought I should change the subject line]
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Here is the statement I am proposing on behalf of IGC, based on members'
> contributions so far. I have added a sixth principle (which could be #3
> --amplifying aspects of #2 -- or # 6 as per below). Please feel free to
> propose edits, not to change the substance unless it is your intent in
> which case we would appreciate some explaining, but to make the formulation
> as crispy as possible if you can.
> >
> > Let's do this by tomorrow Friday at 21:00 UTC/GMT the latest (in a
> little more than 24 hrs).
> >
> > IGC STATEMENT
> >
> > The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to thank the organizers of the
> NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings
> through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time,
> the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental
> principles to guide any Internet governance processes and decisions in the
> future.
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
> criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or
> economic resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral
> among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
> privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
> benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer
> economic development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
> Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in
> activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> > 6- All decision making processes must ensure the inclusion of not just
> all stakeholders but also all regions of the world in an equitable manner.
> Particularly, any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional
> field and mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current
> configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of
> USG and the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the inclusion of
> all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a truly global cultural
> diversity in approaches to technical and policy problems.
> >
> > ---- end of STATEMENT---
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/c7ae1460/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar  7 10:59:35 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:59:35 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1A68B2EE-3C6C-4480-9EBE-F3615F8BDFED@mail.utoronto.ca>

I totally agree with that summary.  Unfortunately not all governments follow excellent examples like the CGI model, and even on current multilateral bodies, the domestic treatment of results and voting and policymaking in general varies enormously.  One cannot propose multilateral models based on the behaviour of consultative, responsible (in the sense of responsible to their general public) states, one has to design in a way  to make things fault-tolerant. A fascinating challenge. 
Stephanie Perrin
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:10 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> I think it is not so clear cut.
> 
> We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have opportunities to make them more democratic.
> 
> I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who is very active in CGI.br.
> 
> I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was primarily for policy shaping.
> 
> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can give examples.
> 
> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.
> 
> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.
> 
> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that different parts of government is represented which his important. Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
> 
> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
> 
> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>> Joy
>> 
>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>> 
>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  participants(which includes business) should be on the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually making public policies.
>> 
>> Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>> 
>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.
>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>> 
>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant to internet governance
>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing so; and 
>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>> 
>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that 
>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is relevant to internet governance
>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity with each other when doing so; 
>>> 
>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Joy
>>> Joy
>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>> 
>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>> 
>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>> 
>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>> 
>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors....
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>> 
>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>> 
>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and equitable multistakeholder participation " (emphasis added)
>>>>> 
>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/98e0bb7f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 11:00:17 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:00:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <e86f1add6c4a4825a71ac42f63f4f4a1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <6f884b6c31c746c49eeba1209cf13d42@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <D7F04D45-08B3-48A7-A0F4-13C6ABE934C6@ghana.com> <6435223fdac74dc98d0def6c100d215a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <5315E93C.5040207@oracle.com> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A7D70@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
 <AD361958-8699-4F15-AE12-F0020F5D2EC7@glocom.ac.jp> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A810B@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
 <08C2D3F2-0FE0-45A1-93EE-22B4C6236D91@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v_66oz2dqCn7OsgWeKBZ_kcQwb709RWamGERKWVq4Azgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac37b772eb12475f976a773646e52b4a@BL2PR01MB529.prod.exchangelabs.com>
 <CANwsP3CrB2gX0+w28wX+h0N32DgWjXJGbOKxG2Njpigkg7nNGw@mail.gmail.com> <e86f1add6c4a4825a71ac42f63f4f4a1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_W31sp_FfF87poax92KJGjp4tovGrFVXuYeAXEQmi82A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Right, Brenden, I agree that Mawaki has raised an important issue.
> We suggested, perhaps a bit too casually, that the contract between DNSA
> and ICANN might be renegotiated after a period.
> I think that was not fully thought out,


Right!...Not too early, but I guess not too late either.
It indeed didn't strike me as well thought out to even suggest that DNSA
would be in position to make the decision as to who gets the contract,
right after saying it only has a clerical (IANA functions) and a technical
(Root zone maintainer) role --regardless of scenarios such as the one Vinay
has come up with. And that was precisely basis for my question.

Either your proposal is missing some other entity with the authority to
award that contract or your proposed structure will have to be re-designed.
Once USG is taken out of the equation the main purpose of the new DNSA will
be to carry out decisions made by ICANN; I don't see how that makes both
independent entities _freely_ choosing to enter into such contract. Nor do
I see how DNSA can be said to be just clerical and technical while being in
position to decide who is going to be the policymakers whose decisions they
are meant to implement.

Mawaki



> because we don't want DNSA to be the principal and ICANN the agent, nor do
> we want ICANN to be the  principal and DNSA the agent. What we want is a
> stable agreement between two equal parties that is worked out once and kept
> in place indefinitely, unless something goes terribly wrong.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brenden Kuerbis [mailto:bkuerbis at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:51 AM
> To: Mawaki Chango
> Cc: discuss at 1net.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>
> Hi Mawaki,
>
> Thanks for reading the proposal and your questions.
>
> It's worth noting there is a world of difference between government
> contracting <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_contracts>, the
> situation we have currently, and private contracting <
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract>, which we propose between a DNSA
> (registration authority) and ICANN (policy development authority).  E.g.,
> the former often contains mandatory clauses, e.g., unilateral rights to
> terminate or amend, while the conditions of the later are up to the parties
> to negotiate.  Of course, a contract would be enforceable by law, and
> jurisdiction necessarily identified.
>
> Given that, and to your point, we are not suggesting that the DNSA (nor
> ICANN) would be in a position to terminate the contract unilaterally.
> Rather, termination conditions would have be negotiated between the
> parties. Arguably, structurally separating the IANA function (specifically,
> root zone management) makes identifying those conditions easier. It could
> focus the negotiation on determining tangible (e.g., service levels),
> rather than subjective (e.g., is the institution multistakeholder enough),
> measures.
>
> Milton might have something to add, but thanks for helping us clarify that
> point.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As it has been brought to my attention that my comments and question
> > were not clear enough to some, here is another way of stating my
> > concerns quoting from the original text (with a reiteration of my
> > comments in square brackets and caps).
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > The DNSA would require a binding contract with ICANN regarding the
> > conditions under which
> >
> > it would agree to implement changes in the root zone or other
> > associated databases to reflect policies
> >
> > emerging from ICANN's policy development processes [WHO WILL BE THE
> > ENFORCER IN ODER TO MAKE SUCH CONTRACT BINDING?]. The contract should
> > ensure that the DNSA
> >
> > has no policy authority but merely implements valid requests for
> > additions or deletions emerging from
> >
> > ICANN's policy process [NOTED!]. DNSA would promise to abide by ICANN
> > policy directives on the
> >
> > condition that ICANN's policy decisions related to the root not be
> > used to impose requirements on
> >
> > registries, via registry agreements, to regulate content or otherwise
> > locally lawful behavior of registrants.
> >
> > The existence of this contract would provide the opportunity for
> > developing an additional accountability
> >
> > check on ICANN [HOW SO? AGAIN WHO IS THE AUTHORITY THAT WOULD MAKE
> > THIS SO-CALLED "ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY" EFFECTIVE?]. For example,
> > if the contract was not in perpetuity but was renewable every five
> >
> > years, diverse entities might compete to replace the existing ICANN as
> > the policy development
> >
> > authority [SO HERE IS THE CRUX: YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING THAT ONE OF
> > THOSE PARTIES, THE DNSA, IS IN A POSITION TO AWARD THIS CONTRACT TO
> > THE OTHER, AND SO IT MIGHT AT SOME POINT WITHDRAW IT FROM THAT OTHER
> > PARTY AND AWARD IT TO ANOTHER -- NOT UNLIKE THE POSITION THE USG WAS
> > IN WITH ICANN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TENSION? AT THE VERY LEAST THERE
> > IS A GAP IN YOUR EXPLAINING REGARDING THE FULL MECHANISMS OF THIS
> > CONTRACTING, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST SAY DNSA HAS NO POLICY AUTHORITY WHILE
> > IMPLYING IT MIGHT TAKE THE CONTRACT AWAY FROM ICANN (SINCE YOU HAVEN'T
> > EXPLAINED WHERE ELSE THE AUTHORITY FOR DOING THAT WOULD LIE IN THAT
> > RELATIONSHIP OR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.] As for the DNSA, as a private
> > association of incumbent registries, any attempt by it to
> >
> > manipulate root zone management to thwart competition or discriminate
> > against eligible members would
> >
> > be easily challenged by competition law authorities in Europe, the
> > U.S., or elsewhere
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> >
> >
> > =====================================
> > Mawaki Chango, PhD
> > Founder and CEO
> > DIGILEXIS Consulting
> >
> > m.chango at digilexis.com | http://www.digilexis.com
> > Twitter: @digilexis | @dig_mawaki | Skype: digilexis
> > ======================================
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Milton,
> >>
> >>
> >> [Note: Sorry for coming late in this conversation and yet not reading
> >> all the previous comments and answers due to limited connection. So I
> >> am posting the following after reading the paper and drafting this
> >> off line. Apologies for any unintentional repetition.]
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you and Brenden for putting together this innovative attempt to
> >> solving the challenges of the evolving institutional field for
> >> Internet governance, and for sharing it. I have two points about your
> proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >> First, it is not clear to me how combining the IANA functions (which
> >> your proposal define as clerical) with the Root Zone Maintainer
> >> functions (which I would think are technical, with no more decision
> >> making power than the IANA functions) in a new entity provides that
> >> entity with the authority you seem to be giving it.
> >>
> >> Indeed, it sounds like you're proposing to end the _political_
> >> oversight from USG by replacing it with the industry (DNSA)
> >> oversight. You say the existence of a contract between ICANN and the
> >> DNSA provides check and balance to ICANN and that other entities may
> >> even compete to replace ICANN if that contract were to (as it could)
> >> be made renewable every 5 years for instance, etc. In other words,
> >> this contract doesn't seem like a contract between peer organizations
> >> with each just having specific different roles toward the other, but
> >> a contract between a principal and an agent, or in any case between
> >> an entity that has (a higher) authority over the other since the
> >> former can put an end to the raison d'etre of the latter and give it
> away to a competitor.
> >>
> >>
> >> While I understand the incentive-based rationale for the membership
> >> of the DNSA, I fail to see where you make the case for such larger
> >> authority as you attribute to it, again merely by combining the IANA
> >> functions with the Root Zone Maintainer functions. What is the source
> >> of the DNSA authority which makes it competent to exercise an
> >> oversight that matches the previous political oversight (since removing
> the term "political" from "oversight"
> >> doesn't seem to narrow it to only the clerical and technical roles
> >> DNSA is supposed to carry out in the new governance structure) and
> >> competent to decide to grant or not to grant ICANN its contract?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think clarifying this will also help resolve the question as to
> >> whether political considerations (in the larger sense of political)
> >> need to be brought to bear in deciding who should be part of the DNSA
> >> - which can be a decisive factor for the success or failure of this
> proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >> My second point is much shorter and concerns your reference to a
> >> treaty, at last twice. I don't seem to find anywhere in the text an
> >> explanation about what the purpose of a treaty would be within the
> >> framework of this proposal. Would you mind elaborate on that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >> =====================================
> >> Mawaki Chango, PhD
> >> Founder and CEO
> >> DIGILEXIS Consulting
> >>
> >> m.chango at digilexis.com | http://www.digilexis.com
> >> Twitter: @digilexis | @dig_mawaki | Skype: digilexis
> >> ======================================
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Adam:
> >>> >
> >>> > Don't worry, I haven't dismissed the proposal out of hand.  I'm
> >>> > still chewing on it.
> >>> >
> >>> > You mention the concern about "predictable and reliable service"
> >>> > -- do you know of any instances where the current set-up has
> >>> > failed to provide that?
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For a period of about 12 months before David Conrad joined as IANA
> >>> General Manager in 2005 I understand IANA was not working well.
> >>> David fixed things.  David or ccTLD managers on this list could
> >>> explain and clarify/correct my clumsy words.  IANA now has another
> >>> very capable manager, Elise Gerich.  But yes, I believe highly
> unreliable service for a while.
> >>> Not quite the current set-up but within the general current
> arrangement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > I think the point about diversity of registries is an important one.
> >>> > In addition to those you mention, there are the ".brand"
> >>> > registries as well, who would provide yet another voice.  (I
> >>> > assume these would be included, even though they are not mentioned
> >>> > specifically in the proposal.  To the extent these are "single
> >>> > registrant" gTLDs, the "weighting" issue is interesting.  (Of
> >>> > course, there may be non-.brand single registrant TLDs as well (I
> >>> > think I saw a couple of applications where the users were not
> >>> > really "registrants" of SLDs ).)
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Diversity can be a great protector: interests and motivations may
> >>> not align, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > Greg
> >>> >
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:32 PM
> >>> > To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> >>> > Cc: 'joseph alhadeff'; discuss at 1net.org
> >>> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Greg,
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The popular term for this might be "the fox guarding the henhouse."
> >>> >> Of course, if it is merely "operational," then perhaps the
> >>> >> concern is overblown.  But if these functions are merely
> >>> >> operational, why not just leave them at ICANN?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Not sure about "fox guarding the henhouse"...  These functions are
> >>> > essential to the registries' business.  As Milton keeps reminding
> >>> > us, it's operational, they need predictable and reliable service.
> >>> >
> >>> > The diversity of registries is quite positive, very different
> >>> > business models (from com to new community tlds), different
> >>> > stakeholders and particularly sponsoring entities (for profit,
> >>> > ccTLD, government, IGO, NGO), geographic diversity (though even
> >>> > with around 25% ccTLD not as balanced as we'd hope), even language.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think it's worth looking at the merits of the proposal.
> >>> >
> >>> > Best,
> >>> >
> >>> > Adam
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> Greg Shatan
> >>> >>
> >>> >> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org]
> >>> >> On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:55 AM
> >>> >> To: discuss at 1net.org
> >>> >> Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
> >>> >>
> >>> >> While I am not as well versed in these issues and their history
> >>> >> of some of the more frequent commentators, it would seem that
> >>> >> accountability is often benefited by and predicated on a separation
> of duties in oversight.
> >>> >> The new organization seems to rely on self-interested parties
> >>> >> having an alignment of interest with the public good as opposed
> >>> >> to the more traditional concept of separation of duties/interest
> >>> >> in oversight.  Am I missing the checks and balances?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Best-
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Joe
> >>> >> WOn 3/3/2014 9:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> >> Nii, thanks for your questions. Most of them are actually
> >>> >> answered in the paper itself, but I will answer your questions
> directly.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Why is removing USG not mean just that? End of contract
> >>> >>
> >>> >> First, it would be the end of 2 contracts, not one. ICANN and
> >>> >> Verisign. You cannot just end the IANA functions contract.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Second, both contracts contain serious accountability measures.
> >>> >> However wrongly conceived the idea of unilateral U.S. oversight
> >>> >> is, how do we ensure that the root zone is managed properly and
> >>> >> what is the recourse if the root zone managers are either
> >>> >> negligent, incompetent or corrupt? What do you replace the IANA
> contract with?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The reason for a DNSA is that registries have the strongest
> >>> >> incentive to get root zone management right. It is their data
> >>> >> that the root zone contains. To ensure impartial administration
> >>> >> we create a nondiscriminatory right to own DNSA to all registries?
> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> What problem is being solved by combining functions from other
> >>> >>> organizations to create another entity dnsa?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As noted above: 1) accountability problem; 2) incentives problem.
> >>> >> To which we can add: not letting ICANN get too powerful.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> The proposed Dnsa is potentially a consortium of 1000+
> >>> >>> registries and how would this work.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Not that many companies involved. More like a few hundred; lots
> >>> >> of companies have multiple TLDs. Ownership shares might be based
> >>> >> on some metric of size, such as names under registration, etc.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> How does GNSO work? How does ccNSO work? How did Intelsat work?
> >>> >> (consortium of ~200 national telecom operators). How did Nominet
> work?
> >>> >> (shared ownership by many registrars) How does IEEE work?
> >>> >> (hundreds of thousands of members).
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Is this different from creating another ICANN
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Very different. ICANN is for making policy. It involves
> >>> >> representation of diverse stakeholders and a complicated process
> >>> >> for developing consensus on policy and approval by the board. DNSA
> is for operations.
> >>> >> Most people I have talked to agree that we need to keep those
> >>> >> things separate. So, we separate them
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> discuss mailing list
> >>> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> * * *
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 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
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> discuss mailing list
> >>> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> discuss mailing list
> >>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/29653414/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Mar  7 11:49:16 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:49:16 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
>6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to 
>criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, 
>or economic resources

If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges should be 
the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available anywhere in the 
world, then I'm sure you will get a great deal of support.

The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the 
mobile networks".
-- 
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 kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 15:00:17 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 20:00:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>

 I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic
development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those
lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you as
a "pragmatic aspiration"?
Thanks,

Mawaki


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.
> gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <
> kichango at gmail.com> writes
>
>  6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>> criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or
>> economic resources
>>
>
> If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges should be
> the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available anywhere in the world,
> then I'm sure you will get a great deal of support.
>
> The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the mobile
> networks".
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/1e217a00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar  7 16:11:03 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 02:41:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com> <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com> <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com> <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <498E8198-2066-47DF-93B8-7A2188E18434@hserus.net>

Quite often this is not an internet governance question but a telecom competition policy question.  

If a country's government has an enlightened attitude in freeing up telecom from being a government monopoly, providing for fair competition such as unbundling, sharing the last mile (whether cell towers or copper / fiber), providing access to government owned rights of way (such as laying fiber along railway track beds, and in city utility tunnels / lamp posts) then you will automatically get to see cheaper Internet access.

There is little or nothing that we are going to achieve by putting this on the table at netmundial, I am afraid.   A laudable goal and all that, but we have to stay focused.

--srs (iPad)

> On 08-Mar-2014, at 1:30, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you as a "pragmatic aspiration"?
> Thanks,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
>> 
>>> 6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources
>> 
>> If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges should be the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available anywhere in the world, then I'm sure you will get a great deal of support.
>> 
>> The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the mobile networks".
>> -- 
>> Roland Perry
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/ca32b538/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Fri Mar  7 17:46:29 2014
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:46:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Contribution to NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <714025154.12479.1394201397439.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e24>
References: <CA+EjHYroSjZLPFS1W9v2MGXq0VUae8CFQuCn9dohrrUKBJ8aeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <714025154.12479.1394201397439.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e24>
Message-ID: <E1WM3UP-0002Qq-52@igcaucus.org>


>Not only is it a valuable contribution for a future CS IG statement, 
>but it is also a very instructive (didactic) document for actually 
>understanding what's on stake.
+1

And it should become an imperative for this group to be able to 
publish (from time to time) materials (like Pouzin's) which are 
readable by non-specialist eager to understand what is at stake.
Reaching out to civil society to explain what is at stake in Internet 
governance should be also our duty and the only way democracy become 
real, with or without multistakeholderism.

I take the opportunity to congratulate a Colombian NGO 
(http://karisma.org.co/) who have published an excellent introduction 
to IG that can help people from outer circles to understand the 
stakes involved in discussions which are often too specialized for 
them to participate:

It is in Spanish, it last 10 minutes as a video: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2Vbo_SxIs 


-- 
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 kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 18:25:11 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 23:25:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <498E8198-2066-47DF-93B8-7A2188E18434@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com> <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <498E8198-2066-47DF-93B8-7A2188E18434@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9n4CR5yMUNXT0VPLdrS_Ve6RtO-oGD3XMHYEoAWJMuZw@mail.gmail.com>

I am going to have to assume that nobody considers differentials in market
pricing a discriminatory practice. Therefore, saying no discrimination
based on economic resources cannot be equated to saying no to market
pricing, certainly not at the level of individual users in the same market
setting (although political economy level measures are always possible in
order to reduce imbalances in certain conditions.)

Furthermore, this may also be read as a call on governments and incumbent
telcos to make every possible effort to prevent or limit the extent to
which "economic resources" could be used as basis for discriminatory
decisions on access and availability of contents.

It is 11:25 PM and I am on my way to posting the IGC statement to the
NETMundial site.

Thanks

 Mawaki


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Quite often this is not an internet governance question but a telecom
> competition policy question.
>
> If a country's government has an enlightened attitude in freeing up
> telecom from being a government monopoly, providing for fair competition
> such as unbundling, sharing the last mile (whether cell towers or copper /
> fiber), providing access to government owned rights of way (such as laying
> fiber along railway track beds, and in city utility tunnels / lamp posts)
> then you will automatically get to see cheaper Internet access.
>
> There is little or nothing that we are going to achieve by putting this on
> the table at netmundial, I am afraid.   A laudable goal and all that, but
> we have to stay focused.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 08-Mar-2014, at 1:30, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic
> development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those
> lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you as
> a "pragmatic aspiration"?
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry <
> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.
>> gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <
>> kichango at gmail.com> writes
>>
>>  6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>>> criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or
>>> economic resources
>>>
>>
>> If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges should be
>> the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available anywhere in the world,
>> then I'm sure you will get a great deal of support.
>>
>> The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the mobile
>> networks".
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/4cf79504/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 18:34:55 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 23:34:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9n4CR5yMUNXT0VPLdrS_Ve6RtO-oGD3XMHYEoAWJMuZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com> <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <498E8198-2066-47DF-93B8-7A2188E18434@hserus.net> <CACTo+v9n4CR5yMUNXT0VPLdrS_Ve6RtO-oGD3XMHYEoAWJMuZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8rM3J+d3W5n3X_mxsY+SfETc-Ejbk7zpdq8ZCMtm3Bjw@mail.gmail.com>

Here it is, as posted. I hope it got through as stated on the screen after
posting.

*Statement of Principles Submitted to NETMundial by the Internet Governance
Caucus *


 *Key words:* transparent, accountable, inclusive, equitable, human rights.



*Abstract:* Internet governance processes and decisions should be open and
inclusive, bottom-up and consensus-based in their approach. All
stakeholders from all regions of the world should be given equal
opportunity to participate. Technical design decisions should be weighed
against societal implications of the technology so as to minimize erosion
of individual freedom and liberties.



*IGC Statement:*



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) wishes to thank the organizers of the
NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings
through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time,
the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental
principles to guide Internet governance processes and decisions.



1- Internet governance institutions and processes should be open and
inclusive. They should be bottom-up and consensus-based in their approach
to policy development.  Internet governance institutions and processes
should be transparent, accountable, and enable the meaningful participation
of all stakeholders.



2- All Internet governance decision making processes must ensure the
inclusion of not just all stakeholders but also all regions of the world in
an equitable manner. As a result, a special effort must be engaged in order
to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of
resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet
governance.



3- Any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional field and
mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current
configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of
US Government and of the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the
effective inclusion of all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a
truly global cultural diversity in approaches to technical and policy
problems.



4- The technical community working on core protocols and technical
standards of the Internet should seek a broad understanding of the societal
implications of their design decisions and carefully weigh the advantages
of the technological capabilities they are enabling against their potential
adverse effects on individual users' freedom and liberties. This should be
done with a view to minimizing outcomes that continuously erode said
freedom and liberties, leaving the Internet user vulnerable to all sorts of
abuse.



5 - Namely, whether it is by virtue of technical design or by policy
provisions, on-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they are
entitled to off-line.

6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

7- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

8- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.





On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am going to have to assume that nobody considers differentials in market
> pricing a discriminatory practice. Therefore, saying no discrimination
> based on economic resources cannot be equated to saying no to market
> pricing, certainly not at the level of individual users in the same market
> setting (although political economy level measures are always possible in
> order to reduce imbalances in certain conditions.)
>
> Furthermore, this may also be read as a call on governments and incumbent
> telcos to make every possible effort to prevent or limit the extent to
> which "economic resources" could be used as basis for discriminatory
> decisions on access and availability of contents.
>
> It is 11:25 PM and I am on my way to posting the IGC statement to the
> NETMundial site.
>
> Thanks
>
>  Mawaki
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>
>> Quite often this is not an internet governance question but a telecom
>> competition policy question.
>>
>> If a country's government has an enlightened attitude in freeing up
>> telecom from being a government monopoly, providing for fair competition
>> such as unbundling, sharing the last mile (whether cell towers or copper /
>> fiber), providing access to government owned rights of way (such as laying
>> fiber along railway track beds, and in city utility tunnels / lamp posts)
>> then you will automatically get to see cheaper Internet access.
>>
>> There is little or nothing that we are going to achieve by putting this
>> on the table at netmundial, I am afraid.   A laudable goal and all that,
>> but we have to stay focused.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 08-Mar-2014, at 1:30, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic
>> development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those
>> lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you as
>> a "pragmatic aspiration"?
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry <
>> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.
>>> gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <
>>> kichango at gmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>  6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>>>> criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or
>>>> economic resources
>>>>
>>>
>>> If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges should be
>>> the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available anywhere in the world,
>>> then I'm sure you will get a great deal of support.
>>>
>>> The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the
>>> mobile networks".
>>> --
>>> Roland Perry
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/2331a79b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 18:37:00 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 23:37:00 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: NETmundial - we received you contribution.
In-Reply-To: <531a56b43050479ab86125dcc8a006ba@content.netmundial.br>
References: <531a56b43050479ab86125dcc8a006ba@content.netmundial.br>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8z=vWCZ9E2z9K6EHDy=nrv-86sRwY=bonr_0VACLobKg@mail.gmail.com>

 FYI


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NetMundial Website <website at netmundial.br>
Date: Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:31 PM
Subject: NETmundial - we received you contribution.
To: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
Cc: Content NETmundial <content at netmundial.br>


 Hello Mr. Mawaki Chango

This is to inform you that we successfully received your information.
Thank you very much.

NETmundial Executive Secretariat
@netmundial2014
www.netmundial.org

Data Received from Netmundial website
 Title: Statement of Principles Submitted to NETMundial by the Internet
Governance Caucus  Area: SET OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES  Name: Mr.
Mawaki Chango  Email: kichango at gmail.com  Organization: Internet Governance
Caucus  Sector: Civil Society  Country or region: Cote d'Ivoire
Abstract Internet
governance processes and decisions should be open and inclusive, bottom-up
and consensus-based in their approach. All stakeholders from all regions of
the world should be given equal opportunity to participate. Technical
design decisions should be weighed against societal implications of the
technology so as to minimize erosion of individual freedom and liberties.
Keywords transparent, accountable, inclusive, equitable, human rights  Content
Contribution

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) wishes to thank the organizers of the
NETMundial meeting, for the invitation to contribute to its proceedings
through a written submission ahead of the meeting. At this point in time,
the IGC is hereby submitting the following statement of a few fundamental
principles to guide Internet governance processes and decisions.



1- Internet governance institutions and processes should be open and
inclusive. They should be bottom-up and consensus-based in their approach
to policy development.  Internet governance institutions and processes
should be transparent, accountable, and enable the meaningful participation
of all stakeholders.



2- All Internet governance decision making processes must ensure the
inclusion of not just all stakeholders but also all regions of the world in
an equitable manner. As a result, a special effort must be engaged in order
to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of
resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet
governance.



3- Any decision to evolve the internet governance institutional field and
mechanisms as well as any new structure evolving from the current
configuration of the implementation of the IANA functions and the role of
US Government and of the other incumbents in that regard, must reflect the
effective inclusion of all regions of the world with a view to ensuring a
truly global cultural diversity in approaches to technical and policy
problems.



4- The technical community working on core protocols and technical
standards of the Internet should seek a broad understanding of the societal
implications of their design decisions and carefully weigh the advantages
of the technological capabilities they are enabling against their potential
adverse effects on individual users' freedom and liberties. This should be
done with a view to minimizing outcomes that continuously erode said
freedom and liberties, leaving the Internet user vulnerable to all sorts of
abuse.





5 - Namely, whether it is by virtue of technical design or by policy
provisions, on-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they are
entitled to off-line.

6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

7- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

8- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/fc185dd6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dl at panamo.eu  Fri Mar  7 22:32:06 2014
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 04:32:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] SEI's Net Mundial Submission
Message-ID: <531A8F36.3080605@panamo.eu>

Hi all,

Here attached the contribution I posted for the thinktank Société
européenne de l'Internet (France).
It is related to gTLDs, shocking regional disparities and tax avoidance.

@+, best regards, Dominique

-- 
@+, Dominique Lacroix

Société européenne de l'Internet
Présidente
&
Photographer
http://panamo.eu
&
Associated researcher
Chaire Castex de cyberstratégie
http://cyberstrategie.org
&
Affiliated researcher
European consortium Internet Science
http://internet-science.eu
&
Invited Blogger at le Monde.fr
http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/7f532b01/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SEI_TLD_Cognition_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 223117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/7f532b01/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar  7 22:40:31 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:10:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_W31sp_FfF87poax92KJGjp4tovGrFVXuYeAXEQmi82A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6f884b6c31c746c49eeba1209cf13d42@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<D7F04D45-08B3-48A7-A0F4-13C6ABE934C6@ghana.com>	<6435223fdac74dc98d0def6c100d215a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<5315E93C.5040207@oracle.com>	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A7D70@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>	<AD361958-8699-4F15-AE12-F0020F5D2EC7@glocom.ac.jp>	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A810B@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>	<08C2D3F2-0FE0-45A1-93EE-22B4C6236D91@glocom.ac.jp>	<CACTo+v_66oz2dqCn7OsgWeKBZ_kcQwb709RWamGERKWVq4Azgg@mail.gmail.com>	<ac37b772eb12475f976a773646e52b4a@BL2PR01MB529.prod.exchangelabs.com>	<CANwsP3CrB2gX0+w28wX+h0N32DgWjXJGbOKxG2Njpigkg7nNGw@mail.gmail.com>	<e86f1add6c4a4825a71ac42f63f4f4a1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v_W31sp_FfF87poax92KJGjp4tovGrFVXuYeAXEQmi82A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <531A912F.1080603@itforchange.net>




On Friday 07 March 2014 09:30 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu 
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Right, Brenden, I agree that Mawaki has raised an important issue.
>     We suggested, perhaps a bit too casually, that the contract
>     between DNSA and ICANN might be renegotiated after a period.
>     I think that was not fully thought out, 
>
>
> Right!...Not too early, but I guess not too late either.
> It indeed didn't strike me as well thought out to even suggest that 
> DNSA would be in position to make the decision as to who gets the 
> contract, right after saying it only has a clerical (IANA functions) 
> and a technical (Root zone maintainer) role


Yes, this is the principal problem with Milton and Brenden's proposal.

Everyone's eye is on the one big knotty problem on the CIR side of 
global IG - the oversight of ICANN..... It is not clear whether Milton 
and Brenden's proposal at all attempts to solve this problem. If it 
does, it tries to do so in a strangely circular, and, IMO, rather 
untenable way.

They wish to create a new entity with an extremely unclear status, role 
and authority. They like to call its function as merely clerical and of 
only technical implementation. It is strange to describe the role and 
function in such a manner of an agency which seems to have complete 
legal and physical custody of the root of the global Internet - and that 
too with no oversight above it at all, which seems to make this control 
rather absolute, whether Milton and Brenden actually say this or not.

   Milton and Brenden say that this new entity cannot abuse this all 
crucial position because it will be bond by a contract with ICANN to do 
only implementation as per policy developed by ICANN. However, at the 
same time is seems that this new entity is the Principal in the implied 
contract, which it can award to other possible contractors than ICANN... 
Unclear here who writes the contract and ensures its inviolability (as 
Mawaki argues). Is it to be under some clear international law and 
system beyond both these entities - the new one and the ICANN? That is 
the crucial missing point. What stops this new entity from giving the 
contract to a party that agrees (gradually and progressively, or at one 
go) to its own thinking/ interests rather than not? Does  every 
contractor not keep a keen eye  on the next renewal periodin terms of 
how it acts, as for instance ICANN does at present vis a vis DoC of US 
government.

Evidently, despite the proponents best effort at sugar-coating the fact, 
the new entity would exercise a de facto oversight role over ICANN, by 
being the Principal of the contract between them, and having the actual 
authority and legal possession vis a vis root changes.

Can a trade association be trusted to exercise such a role? I take the 
easy route to quote what Adam Smith said - Adam Smith, the so called 
founder of free market doctrines.

  "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and 
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, 
or in some contrivance to raise prices.... But though the law cannot 
hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it 
ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render 
them necessary. "

Adam gives us a clear advice - do not encourage an assembly of tld 
operators for any purpose at all, much less give them the control of 
global Internet's root.

However, even before Milton and Brenden's proposal can be judged to be 
good or bad I think it will be judged as impractical by neutral legal 
pandits and jurists.

About Brenden's point below on termination of contracts, conditions in 
this regard always favour the entity who holds the default power - if 
there were no contract (as for instance between a property owner and one 
who rents it)... In this case, it is the proposed new entity that holds 
all the important cards. In any case, there is the issue of renewal of 
the contract - a situation which lies outside the contract and cannot 
ordinarily be guided by the contract. Here the defualt power and 
position - which lies with the proposed new entity - becomes all 
important, and gives it the kind of power most of us cannot even think 
of giving to such an entity.

Also, Vinay's poser is very interesting and very real, and I did not 
hear a response to it - how will the new proposed entity react to a 
situation where, at the time of renewal of the contract, an entity other 
than ICANN comes up with a claim of better, including more globally 
representative, policy development position?

parminder





> --regardless of scenarios such as the one Vinay has come up with. And 
> that was precisely basis for my question.
>
> Either your proposal is missing some other entity with the authority 
> to award that contract or your proposed structure will have to be 
> re-designed. Once USG is taken out of the equation the main purpose of 
> the new DNSA will be to carry out decisions made by ICANN; I don't see 
> how that makes both independent entities _freely_ choosing to enter 
> into such contract. Nor do I see how DNSA can be said to be just 
> clerical and technical while being in position to decide who is going 
> to be the policymakers whose decisions they are meant to implement.
>
> Mawaki
>
>     because we don't want DNSA to be the principal and ICANN the
>     agent, nor do we want ICANN to be the  principal and DNSA the
>     agent. What we want is a stable agreement between two equal
>     parties that is worked out once and kept in place indefinitely,
>     unless something goes terribly wrong.
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Brenden Kuerbis [mailto:bkuerbis at gmail.com
>     <mailto:bkuerbis at gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:51 AM
>     To: Mawaki Chango
>     Cc: discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>; Milton L Mueller
>     Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>
>     Hi Mawaki,
>
>     Thanks for reading the proposal and your questions.
>
>     It's worth noting there is a world of difference between
>     government contracting
>     <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_contracts>, the
>     situation we have currently, and private contracting
>     <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract>, which we propose
>     between a DNSA (registration authority) and ICANN (policy
>     development authority).  E.g., the former often contains mandatory
>     clauses, e.g., unilateral rights to terminate or amend, while the
>     conditions of the later are up to the parties to negotiate.  Of
>     course, a contract would be enforceable by law, and jurisdiction
>     necessarily identified.
>
>     Given that, and to your point, we are not suggesting that the DNSA
>     (nor ICANN) would be in a position to terminate the contract
>     unilaterally. Rather, termination conditions would have be
>     negotiated between the parties. Arguably, structurally separating
>     the IANA function (specifically, root zone management) makes
>     identifying those conditions easier. It could focus the
>     negotiation on determining tangible (e.g., service levels), rather
>     than subjective (e.g., is the institution multistakeholder
>     enough), measures.
>
>     Milton might have something to add, but thanks for helping us
>     clarify that point.
>
>
>     ---------------------------------------
>     Brenden Kuerbis
>
>
>     On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com
>     <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > As it has been brought to my attention that my comments and question
>     > were not clear enough to some, here is another way of stating my
>     > concerns quoting from the original text (with a reiteration of my
>     > comments in square brackets and caps).
>     >
>     > <quote>
>     >
>     > The DNSA would require a binding contract with ICANN regarding the
>     > conditions under which
>     >
>     > it would agree to implement changes in the root zone or other
>     > associated databases to reflect policies
>     >
>     > emerging from ICANN's policy development processes [WHO WILL BE THE
>     > ENFORCER IN ODER TO MAKE SUCH CONTRACT BINDING?]. The contract
>     should
>     > ensure that the DNSA
>     >
>     > has no policy authority but merely implements valid requests for
>     > additions or deletions emerging from
>     >
>     > ICANN's policy process [NOTED!]. DNSA would promise to abide by
>     ICANN
>     > policy directives on the
>     >
>     > condition that ICANN's policy decisions related to the root not be
>     > used to impose requirements on
>     >
>     > registries, via registry agreements, to regulate content or
>     otherwise
>     > locally lawful behavior of registrants.
>     >
>     > The existence of this contract would provide the opportunity for
>     > developing an additional accountability
>     >
>     > check on ICANN [HOW SO? AGAIN WHO IS THE AUTHORITY THAT WOULD MAKE
>     > THIS SO-CALLED "ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY" EFFECTIVE?]. For example,
>     > if the contract was not in perpetuity but was renewable every five
>     >
>     > years, diverse entities might compete to replace the existing
>     ICANN as
>     > the policy development
>     >
>     > authority [SO HERE IS THE CRUX: YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING THAT
>     ONE OF
>     > THOSE PARTIES, THE DNSA, IS IN A POSITION TO AWARD THIS CONTRACT TO
>     > THE OTHER, AND SO IT MIGHT AT SOME POINT WITHDRAW IT FROM THAT OTHER
>     > PARTY AND AWARD IT TO ANOTHER -- NOT UNLIKE THE POSITION THE USG WAS
>     > IN WITH ICANN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TENSION? AT THE VERY LEAST
>     THERE
>     > IS A GAP IN YOUR EXPLAINING REGARDING THE FULL MECHANISMS OF THIS
>     > CONTRACTING, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST SAY DNSA HAS NO POLICY AUTHORITY
>     WHILE
>     > IMPLYING IT MIGHT TAKE THE CONTRACT AWAY FROM ICANN (SINCE YOU
>     HAVEN'T
>     > EXPLAINED WHERE ELSE THE AUTHORITY FOR DOING THAT WOULD LIE IN THAT
>     > RELATIONSHIP OR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.] As for the DNSA, as a private
>     > association of incumbent registries, any attempt by it to
>     >
>     > manipulate root zone management to thwart competition or
>     discriminate
>     > against eligible members would
>     >
>     > be easily challenged by competition law authorities in Europe, the
>     > U.S., or elsewhere
>     >
>     > </quote>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > =====================================
>     > Mawaki Chango, PhD
>     > Founder and CEO
>     > DIGILEXIS Consulting
>     >
>     > m.chango at digilexis.com <mailto:m.chango at digilexis.com> |
>     http://www.digilexis.com
>     > Twitter: @digilexis | @dig_mawaki | Skype: digilexis
>     > ======================================
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Mawaki Chango
>     <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Milton,
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Note: Sorry for coming late in this conversation and yet not
>     reading
>     >> all the previous comments and answers due to limited
>     connection. So I
>     >> am posting the following after reading the paper and drafting this
>     >> off line. Apologies for any unintentional repetition.]
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Thank you and Brenden for putting together this innovative
>     attempt to
>     >> solving the challenges of the evolving institutional field for
>     >> Internet governance, and for sharing it. I have two points
>     about your proposal.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> First, it is not clear to me how combining the IANA functions
>     (which
>     >> your proposal define as clerical) with the Root Zone Maintainer
>     >> functions (which I would think are technical, with no more decision
>     >> making power than the IANA functions) in a new entity provides that
>     >> entity with the authority you seem to be giving it.
>     >>
>     >> Indeed, it sounds like you're proposing to end the _political_
>     >> oversight from USG by replacing it with the industry (DNSA)
>     >> oversight. You say the existence of a contract between ICANN
>     and the
>     >> DNSA provides check and balance to ICANN and that other
>     entities may
>     >> even compete to replace ICANN if that contract were to (as it
>     could)
>     >> be made renewable every 5 years for instance, etc. In other words,
>     >> this contract doesn't seem like a contract between peer
>     organizations
>     >> with each just having specific different roles toward the
>     other, but
>     >> a contract between a principal and an agent, or in any case between
>     >> an entity that has (a higher) authority over the other since the
>     >> former can put an end to the raison d'etre of the latter and
>     give it away to a competitor.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> While I understand the incentive-based rationale for the membership
>     >> of the DNSA, I fail to see where you make the case for such larger
>     >> authority as you attribute to it, again merely by combining the
>     IANA
>     >> functions with the Root Zone Maintainer functions. What is the
>     source
>     >> of the DNSA authority which makes it competent to exercise an
>     >> oversight that matches the previous political oversight (since
>     removing the term "political" from "oversight"
>     >> doesn't seem to narrow it to only the clerical and technical roles
>     >> DNSA is supposed to carry out in the new governance structure) and
>     >> competent to decide to grant or not to grant ICANN its contract?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I think clarifying this will also help resolve the question as to
>     >> whether political considerations (in the larger sense of political)
>     >> need to be brought to bear in deciding who should be part of
>     the DNSA
>     >> -- which can be a decisive factor for the success or failure of
>     this proposal.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> My second point is much shorter and concerns your reference to a
>     >> treaty, at last twice. I don't seem to find anywhere in the text an
>     >> explanation about what the purpose of a treaty would be within the
>     >> framework of this proposal. Would you mind elaborate on that?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Thanks,
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Mawaki
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> =====================================
>     >> Mawaki Chango, PhD
>     >> Founder and CEO
>     >> DIGILEXIS Consulting
>     >>
>     >> m.chango at digilexis.com <mailto:m.chango at digilexis.com> |
>     http://www.digilexis.com
>     >> Twitter: @digilexis | @dig_mawaki | Skype: digilexis
>     >> ======================================
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>     <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> > Adam:
>     >>> >
>     >>> > Don't worry, I haven't dismissed the proposal out of hand.  I'm
>     >>> > still chewing on it.
>     >>> >
>     >>> > You mention the concern about "predictable and reliable service"
>     >>> > -- do you know of any instances where the current set-up has
>     >>> > failed to provide that?
>     >>> >
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> For a period of about 12 months before David Conrad joined as IANA
>     >>> General Manager in 2005 I understand IANA was not working well.
>     >>> David fixed things.  David or ccTLD managers on this list could
>     >>> explain and clarify/correct my clumsy words.  IANA now has another
>     >>> very capable manager, Elise Gerich.  But yes, I believe highly
>     unreliable service for a while.
>     >>> Not quite the current set-up but within the general current
>     arrangement.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> > I think the point about diversity of registries is an
>     important one.
>     >>> > In addition to those you mention, there are the ".brand"
>     >>> > registries as well, who would provide yet another voice.  (I
>     >>> > assume these would be included, even though they are not
>     mentioned
>     >>> > specifically in the proposal.  To the extent these are "single
>     >>> > registrant" gTLDs, the "weighting" issue is interesting.  (Of
>     >>> > course, there may be non-.brand single registrant TLDs as
>     well (I
>     >>> > think I saw a couple of applications where the users were not
>     >>> > really "registrants" of SLDs ).)
>     >>> >
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Diversity can be a great protector: interests and motivations may
>     >>> not align, etc.
>     >>>
>     >>> Adam
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> > Greg
>     >>> >
>     >>> > -----Original Message-----
>     >>> > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>     <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>]
>     >>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:32 PM
>     >>> > To: Shatan, Gregory S.
>     >>> > Cc: 'joseph alhadeff'; discuss at 1net.org
>     <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     >>> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>     >>> >
>     >>> >
>     >>> > Hi Greg,
>     >>> >
>     >>> > On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>     >>> >
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> The popular term for this might be "the fox guarding the
>     henhouse."
>     >>> >> Of course, if it is merely "operational," then perhaps the
>     >>> >> concern is overblown.  But if these functions are merely
>     >>> >> operational, why not just leave them at ICANN?
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >
>     >>> >
>     >>> > Not sure about "fox guarding the henhouse"...  These
>     functions are
>     >>> > essential to the registries' business.  As Milton keeps
>     reminding
>     >>> > us, it's operational, they need predictable and reliable
>     service.
>     >>> >
>     >>> > The diversity of registries is quite positive, very different
>     >>> > business models (from com to new community tlds), different
>     >>> > stakeholders and particularly sponsoring entities (for profit,
>     >>> > ccTLD, government, IGO, NGO), geographic diversity (though even
>     >>> > with around 25% ccTLD not as balanced as we'd hope), even
>     language.
>     >>> >
>     >>> > I think it's worth looking at the merits of the proposal.
>     >>> >
>     >>> > Best,
>     >>> >
>     >>> > Adam
>     >>> >
>     >>> >
>     >>> >> Greg Shatan
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org
>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org
>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>]
>     >>> >> On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>     >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:55 AM
>     >>> >> To: discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     >>> >> Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> While I am not as well versed in these issues and their history
>     >>> >> of some of the more frequent commentators, it would seem that
>     >>> >> accountability is often benefited by and predicated on a
>     separation of duties in oversight.
>     >>> >> The new organization seems to rely on self-interested parties
>     >>> >> having an alignment of interest with the public good as opposed
>     >>> >> to the more traditional concept of separation of
>     duties/interest
>     >>> >> in oversight.  Am I missing the checks and balances?
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> Best-
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> Joe
>     >>> >> WOn 3/3/2014 9:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>     >>> >> Nii, thanks for your questions. Most of them are actually
>     >>> >> answered in the paper itself, but I will answer your
>     questions directly.
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>> Why is removing USG not mean just that? End of contract
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> First, it would be the end of 2 contracts, not one. ICANN and
>     >>> >> Verisign. You cannot just end the IANA functions contract.
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> Second, both contracts contain serious accountability measures.
>     >>> >> However wrongly conceived the idea of unilateral U.S. oversight
>     >>> >> is, how do we ensure that the root zone is managed properly and
>     >>> >> what is the recourse if the root zone managers are either
>     >>> >> negligent, incompetent or corrupt? What do you replace the
>     IANA contract with?
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> The reason for a DNSA is that registries have the strongest
>     >>> >> incentive to get root zone management right. It is their data
>     >>> >> that the root zone contains. To ensure impartial administration
>     >>> >> we create a nondiscriminatory right to own DNSA to all
>     registries?
>     >>>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>> What problem is being solved by combining functions from other
>     >>> >>> organizations to create another entity dnsa?
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> As noted above: 1) accountability problem; 2) incentives
>     problem.
>     >>> >> To which we can add: not letting ICANN get too powerful.
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>> The proposed Dnsa is potentially a consortium of 1000+
>     >>> >>> registries and how would this work.
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> Not that many companies involved. More like a few hundred; lots
>     >>> >> of companies have multiple TLDs. Ownership shares might be
>     based
>     >>> >> on some metric of size, such as names under registration, etc.
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> How does GNSO work? How does ccNSO work? How did Intelsat work?
>     >>> >> (consortium of ~200 national telecom operators). How did
>     Nominet work?
>     >>> >> (shared ownership by many registrars) How does IEEE work?
>     >>> >> (hundreds of thousands of members).
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>> Is this different from creating another ICANN
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> Very different. ICANN is for making policy. It involves
>     >>> >> representation of diverse stakeholders and a complicated
>     process
>     >>> >> for developing consensus on policy and approval by the
>     board. DNSA is for operations.
>     >>> >> Most people I have talked to agree that we need to keep those
>     >>> >> things separate. So, we separate them
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> _______________________________________________
>     >>> >> discuss mailing list
>     >>> >> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     >>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> * * *
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> 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
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >>
>     >>> >> _______________________________________________
>     >>> >> discuss mailing list
>     >>> >> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     >>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>     >>> >
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> discuss mailing list
>     >>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/f4ae0dbb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  8 01:32:31 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:02:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
Message-ID: <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>


On Friday 07 March 2014 03:40 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I think it is not so clear cut.
>
> We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have 
> opportunities to make them more democratic.
>
> I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil 
> who is very active in CGI.br.
>
> I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use 
> Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was 
> primarily for policy shaping.
>
> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body 
> that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these 
> lists can give examples.
>
> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that 
> is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public 
> policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.

I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public 
policy. Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we 
discussing here.

Apart from the difference between public policies and technical 
decisions, is also the difference between original public policy 
authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that 
are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public 
administration.

A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject 
to a higher authority (judicial review being a different matter) and is 
accompanied with legitimate coercive power for enforcement. Such power 
only lies with elected representatives in democracies. It cannot, for 
instance, be exercised by business representatives .

(At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner  
whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international 
treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, 
the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex 
interplay with national political systems. But this system of global 
public policies still works.)

As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public 
policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.

There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions 
regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business 
to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established 
on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of 
our social and political existence. This is what is happening now.

Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in 
public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big 
business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. 
The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered 
by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global 
level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global 
level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this 
models is brought to the national levels.

I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a 
neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact 
contributing so strongly to...

parminder



>
> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, 
> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>
> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some 
> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that 
> different parts of government is represented which his important. 
> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>
> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how 
> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and 
> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or 
> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and 
> approving/rejecting'.
>
> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models 
> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where 
> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should 
> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually 
> done in an inclusive MS space.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>> Joy
>>
>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>
>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that 
>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same 
>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public 
>> *//*policies*//*.
>>
>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>
>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>
>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying 
>> statements.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy 
>> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on 
>> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out 
>> withdrawn. Thanks.
>>
>> /*
>> */
>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>
>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>     internet governance.
>>>
>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes 
>>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has 
>>> been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder 
>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To 
>>> be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents 
>>> and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet 
>>> governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into 
>>> NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>
>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>
>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
>>> relevant to internet governance
>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
>>> doing so; and
>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and 
>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this 
>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>
>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>
>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which 
>>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation 
>>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Joy
>>> Joy
>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and 
>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>
>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>
>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with 
>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil 
>>>> society and international organisations. No single government 
>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international 
>>>> internet governance."
>>>>
>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
>>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
>>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>
>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines 
>>>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of 
>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role 
>>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>
>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term 
>>>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning 
>>>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But 
>>>> we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that 
>>>> no one government should dominate - but in the context of the 
>>>> involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's 
>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with 
>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies 
>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all 
>>>>>>>> points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two 
>>>>>>>> hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... 
>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different 
>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. 
>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all 
>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role 
>>>>>>>> (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please 
>>>>>>>> address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of 
>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can 
>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At 
>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it 
>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to 
>>>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how 
>>>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in 
>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non 
>>>>>> gov actors.... 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that 
>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not 
>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to 
>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet 
>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this 
>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - 
>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the 
>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also 
>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
>>>>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>
>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term 
>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>
>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in 
>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
>>>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder 
>>>>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>
>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur 
>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the 
>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me 
>>>>> to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to 
>>>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin 
>>>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post 
>>>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It 
>>>>> is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the 
>>>>> Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>>
>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like 
>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the 
>>>>> emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are 
>>>>> getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly 
>>>>> it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at 
>>>>> present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of 
>>>>> the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>>>>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most 
>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on 
>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the 
>>>>>> key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
>>>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related 
>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for 
>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to 
>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is 
>>>>>> respected and that relevant national legislation complies with 
>>>>>> their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to 
>>>>>> ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of 
>>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil 
>>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator 
>>>>>> and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, 
>>>>>> especially at community level. The private sector and 
>>>>>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
>>>>>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the 
>>>>>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up 
>>>>>> to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of 
>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic 
>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved 
>>>>>> need to work together."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org 
>>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, 
>>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/373851cb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar  8 01:49:07 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 12:19:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
Message-ID: <67BFAB41-652C-4A14-9129-83C82F93B0AF@hserus.net>

The cgi in cgi.br - the C is brazilian portuguese for Committee, the g is 'gestor' = management, / coordination and i = Internet.   Essentially a steering committee.

A quick scan of their website looks like this is a multistakeholder steering committee for operational policy making (including mutually agreed upon declarations of principles), and for providing input into higher levels of public policy (such as position papers and consultation on legislation like the upcoming Marco Civil)

--srs (iPad)

> On 08-Mar-2014, at 12:02, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Friday 07 March 2014 03:40 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>> 
>> I think it is not so clear cut.
>> 
>> We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have opportunities to make them more democratic.
>> 
>> I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who is very active in CGI.br.
>> 
>> I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was primarily for policy shaping.
>> 
>> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can give examples.
>> 
>> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.
> 
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public policy. Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we discussing here.
> 
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical decisions, is also the difference between original public policy authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
> 
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business representatives .
> 
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But this system of global public policies still works.)
> 
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments. 
> 
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is happening now. 
> 
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is brought to the national levels. 
> 
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact contributing so strongly to... 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.
>> 
>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that different parts of government is represented which his important. Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>> 
>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
>> 
>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>> Joy
>>> 
>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>> 
>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  participants(which includes business) should be on the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually making public policies.
>>> 
>>> Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>> 
>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.
>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>> 
>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>> 
>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant to internet governance
>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing so; and 
>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>> 
>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that 
>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is relevant to internet governance
>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity with each other when doing so; 
>>>> 
>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Joy
>>>> Joy
>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>> 
>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral democratic oversight of the                   Internet. Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and equitable multistakeholder participation " (emphasis added)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression,                 access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/9e0c52c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  8 02:03:38 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:33:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 08 March 2014 12:02 PM, parminder wrote:
>> SNIP
>>
>> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body 
>> that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these 
>> lists can give examples.
>>
>> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body 
>> that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public 
>> policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.
>
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public 
> policy. Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we 
> discussing here.

Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in 
multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you 
support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - 
actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in 
education policy making, and so on...

If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?

Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be 
discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control, 
for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for 
multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level? 
Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing 
here.

parminder

>
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical 
> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy 
> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that 
> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and 
> public administration.
>
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being 
> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different 
> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for 
> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in 
> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business 
> representatives .
>
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex 
> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify 
> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry 
> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain 
> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But 
> this system of global public policies still works.)
>
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public 
> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions 
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big 
> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is 
> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover 
> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is 
> happening now.
>
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in 
> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big 
> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it 
> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the 
> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at 
> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at 
> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then 
> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a 
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact 
> contributing so strongly to...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, 
>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>
>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some 
>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that 
>> different parts of government is represented which his important. 
>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>
>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how 
>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and 
>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or 
>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and 
>> approving/rejecting'.
>>
>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models 
>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where 
>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should 
>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually 
>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>
>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that 
>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same 
>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public 
>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>
>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>
>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
>>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying 
>>> statements.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And 
>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee 
>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed 
>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>
>>> /*
>>> */
>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>
>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes 
>>>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has 
>>>> been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder 
>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. 
>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other 
>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to 
>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into 
>>>> NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>
>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>
>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
>>>> doing so; and
>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and 
>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this 
>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>
>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>
>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission 
>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation 
>>>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joy
>>>> Joy
>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and 
>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with 
>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil 
>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government 
>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international 
>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>
>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
>>>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
>>>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic 
>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of 
>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role 
>>>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>
>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the 
>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as 
>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest 
>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be 
>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the 
>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's 
>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with 
>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies 
>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at 
>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. 
>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... 
>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different 
>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. 
>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all 
>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and 
>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. 
>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of 
>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can 
>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At 
>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it 
>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, 
>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about 
>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and 
>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in 
>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and 
>>>>>>> non gov actors.... 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that 
>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not 
>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to 
>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet 
>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this 
>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - 
>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the 
>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also 
>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, 
>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term 
>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in 
>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, 
>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable 
>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur 
>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the 
>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for 
>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not 
>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the 
>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new 
>>>>>> post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream 
>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed 
>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib 
>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like 
>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in 
>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the 
>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And 
>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime 
>>>>>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get 
>>>>>> into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC 
>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most 
>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on 
>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is 
>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of 
>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related 
>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for 
>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to 
>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is 
>>>>>>> respected and that relevant national legislation complies with 
>>>>>>> their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need 
>>>>>>> to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of 
>>>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil 
>>>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator 
>>>>>>> and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, 
>>>>>>> especially at community level. The private sector and 
>>>>>>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
>>>>>>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the 
>>>>>>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live 
>>>>>>> up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of 
>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic 
>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved 
>>>>>>> need to work together."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org 
>>>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, 
>>>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/42405d4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  8 02:08:46 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:38:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531AC1FE.20001@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 08 March 2014 12:02 PM, parminder wrote:
>> SNIP
>>
>> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body 
>> that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these 
>> lists can give examples.
>>
>> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body 
>> that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public 
>> policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.
>
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public 
> policy. Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we 
> discussing here.

Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in 
multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you 
support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - 
actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in 
education policy making, and so on...

If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?

Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be 
discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control, 
for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for 
multistakeholder policy making in the education sector at the national 
level? Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are 
embracing here.

parminder

>
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical 
> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy 
> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that 
> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and 
> public administration.
>
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being 
> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different 
> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for 
> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in 
> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business 
> representatives .
>
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex 
> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify 
> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry 
> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain 
> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But 
> this system of global public policies still works.)
>
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public 
> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions 
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big 
> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is 
> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover 
> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is 
> happening now.
>
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in 
> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big 
> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it 
> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the 
> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at 
> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at 
> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then 
> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a 
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact 
> contributing so strongly to...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, 
>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>
>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some 
>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that 
>> different parts of government is represented which his important. 
>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>
>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how 
>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and 
>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or 
>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and 
>> approving/rejecting'.
>>
>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models 
>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where 
>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should 
>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually 
>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>
>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that 
>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same 
>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public 
>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>
>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>
>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
>>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying 
>>> statements.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And 
>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee 
>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed 
>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>
>>> /*
>>> */
>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>
>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes 
>>>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has 
>>>> been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder 
>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. 
>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other 
>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to 
>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into 
>>>> NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>
>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>
>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
>>>> doing so; and
>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and 
>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this 
>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>
>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>
>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission 
>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation 
>>>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joy
>>>> Joy
>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and 
>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with 
>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil 
>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government 
>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international 
>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>
>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
>>>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
>>>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic 
>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of 
>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role 
>>>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>
>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the 
>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as 
>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest 
>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be 
>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the 
>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's 
>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with 
>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies 
>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at 
>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. 
>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... 
>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different 
>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. 
>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all 
>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and 
>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. 
>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of 
>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can 
>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At 
>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it 
>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, 
>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about 
>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and 
>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in 
>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and 
>>>>>>> non gov actors.... 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that 
>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not 
>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to 
>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet 
>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this 
>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - 
>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the 
>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also 
>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, 
>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term 
>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in 
>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, 
>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable 
>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur 
>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the 
>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for 
>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not 
>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the 
>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new 
>>>>>> post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream 
>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed 
>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib 
>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like 
>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in 
>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the 
>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And 
>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime 
>>>>>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get 
>>>>>> into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC 
>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most 
>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on 
>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is 
>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of 
>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related 
>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for 
>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to 
>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is 
>>>>>>> respected and that relevant national legislation complies with 
>>>>>>> their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need 
>>>>>>> to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of 
>>>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil 
>>>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator 
>>>>>>> and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, 
>>>>>>> especially at community level. The private sector and 
>>>>>>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
>>>>>>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the 
>>>>>>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live 
>>>>>>> up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of 
>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic 
>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved 
>>>>>>> need to work together."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org 
>>>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, 
>>>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/7cc096ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar  8 04:07:08 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:37:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <87930F9B-801E-46C5-9934-DE9B44F9A2F0@hserus.net>

So it is your argument that industry participating in any form of multistakeholder initaitive is a conflict of interest?   If so, it would help to say so without so much circumlocution.

--srs (iPad)

> On 08-Mar-2014, at 12:33, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Saturday 08 March 2014 12:02 PM, parminder wrote:
>>  
>>> 
>>> SNIP
>>> 
>>> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can give examples.
>>> 
>>> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.
>> 
>> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public policy. Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we discussing here.
> 
> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in education policy making, and so on...
> 
> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'? 
> 
> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level? Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing here.
> 
> parminder 
> 
>> 
>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical decisions, is also the difference between original public policy authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
>> 
>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for         enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business representatives .
>> 
>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But this system of global public policies still works.)
>> 
>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments. 
>> 
>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is happening now. 
>> 
>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is brought to the national levels. 
>> 
>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact contributing so strongly to... 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>> 
>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that different parts of government is represented which his important. Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>> 
>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
>>> 
>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>> 
>>> Anriette
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>> Joy
>>>> 
>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>> 
>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  participants(which includes business) should be on the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually making public policies.
>>>> 
>>>> Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>> 
>>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.
>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing so; and 
>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that 
>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity with each other when doing so; 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joy
>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power                         sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to                         accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public                       policies between gov and non gov actors....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and equitable multistakeholder participation " (emphasis added)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of                   discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> parminder 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/d54eb730/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sat Mar  8 04:49:36 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:49:36 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <49554106-4F1F-45BE-8E4D-9ECF5A4CA38E@Malcolm.id.au>

On 8 Mar 2014, at 2:32 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is brought to the national levels. 


I'm just going to respond briefly to this discrete point since my name was mentioned.  If you take another look at my NETmundial submission, or indeed at anything else that I have written, I have never specified that there must be equality at the level of formal political power, and actually have said the opposite.  My support has always been for multi-stakeholder processes that develop soft law, which at their intersection with national and international legal systems would have to be implemented through by parliaments, courts, treaties, etc.

Anyway, it is clear that there is a greater than ever divergence between those of us who support the development of multi-stakeholder global Internet governance and those who will continue to place their faith in intergovernmentalism, and we will both claim that it is in support of democracy.  I don't have a problem with the division or the debate, but can we resist taking such a badgering tone?  I really doubt that that form of discourse is going to convince anyone to switch their views.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/d32156cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/d32156cc/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Mar  8 04:54:32 2014
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 18:54:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <49554106-4F1F-45BE-8E4D-9ECF5A4CA38E@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
 <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
 <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <49554106-4F1F-45BE-8E4D-9ECF5A4CA38E@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnM7KYM8YzsK5EpauUUw+Y+iSXQithyMTptte5Ta4c9iA@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
> I'm just going to respond briefly to this discrete point since my name was
> mentioned.  If you take another look at my NETmundial submission, or indeed
> at anything else that I have written, I have never specified that there
> must be equality at the level of formal political power, and actually have
> said the opposite.  My support has always been for multi-stakeholder
> processes that develop soft law, which at their intersection with national
> and international legal systems would have to be implemented through by
> parliaments, courts, treaties, etc.
>
> Anyway, it is clear that there is a greater than ever divergence between
> those of us who support the development of multi-stakeholder global
> Internet governance and those who will continue to place their faith in
> intergovernmentalism, and we will both claim that it is in support of
> democracy.  I don't have a problem with the division or the debate, but can
> we resist taking such a badgering tone?  I really doubt that that form of
> discourse is going to convince anyone to switch their views.
>
>
+1

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/75cbe073/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Mar  8 05:03:17 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:03:17 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9n4CR5yMUNXT0VPLdrS_Ve6RtO-oGD3XMHYEoAWJMuZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <498E8198-2066-47DF-93B8-7A2188E18434@hserus.net>
 <CACTo+v9n4CR5yMUNXT0VPLdrS_Ve6RtO-oGD3XMHYEoAWJMuZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <396811223.5028.1394272997847.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c24>


Dear all

 

Mawaki wrote :



 

in our CS (independant) Declaration at Geneva and Tunis WSIS Summitts I remebrer we used the words "affordable" or "affordability" for qualifying (among other critria) access for all citizens to the ICT and Internet media. This would eliminate the questionable quoted vocabulary.

 

Best

Jean-Louis Fullsack








> Message du 08/03/14 00:26
> De : "Mawaki Chango" 
> A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" 
> Copie à : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Roland Perry" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
> 
>
I am going to have to assume that nobody considers differentials in market pricing a discriminatory practice. Therefore, saying no discrimination based on economic resources cannot be equated to saying no to market pricing, certainly not at the level of individual users in the same market setting (although political economy level measures are always possible in order to reduce imbalances in certain conditions.)

>
Furthermore, this may also be read as a call on governments and incumbent telcos to make every possible effort to prevent or limit the extent to which "economic resources" could be used as basis for discriminatory decisions on access and availability of contents.

>
It is 11:25 PM and I am on my way to posting the IGC statement to the NETMundial site.

>
Thanks
>






Mawaki






> 
>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>


Quite often this is not an internet governance question but a telecom competition policy question.  

>
If a country's government has an enlightened attitude in freeing up telecom from being a government monopoly, providing for fair competition such as unbundling, sharing the last mile (whether cell towers or copper / fiber), providing access to government owned rights of way (such as laying fiber along railway track beds, and in city utility tunnels / lamp posts) then you will automatically get to see cheaper Internet access.
> 
> There is little or nothing that we are going to achieve by putting this on the table at netmundial, I am afraid.   A laudable goal and all that, but we have to stay focused.

>
--srs (iPad)



> On 08-Mar-2014, at 1:30, Mawaki Chango  wrote:
> 
>








I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you as a "pragmatic aspiration"?
Thanks,

>
Mawaki





> 
>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry  wrote:
>
In message , at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango  writes

>
6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources
>

>
If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges should be the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available anywhere in the world, then I'm sure you will get a great deal of support.
> 
> The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the mobile networks".
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>


>




____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>







>





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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/c7c27f85/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Mar  8 06:19:59 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:19:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2aKUkvzfzvGTFAh2@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA at mail.gmail.com>, at 
20:00:17 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
>I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic
>development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those
>lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you
>as a "pragmatic aspiration"?

I'm fully supportive of removing *artificial* cost barriers that affect 
regions.

But I remember when by far the biggest cost of setting up an ISP (and 
hence the biggest cost to my subscribers) in the UK was leasing a 
transatlantic connection to New York. Every sent to or from another user 
in the UK went via New York.

For reasons such as this, the *inherent* cost of providing access 
differs enormously depending on the geography and (the point I was 
making earlier) the local loop technology used, even within a developed 
country such as the UK.

Very approximately, $20 will buy me 1GB of 3G/4G connectivity a month, 
or "unlimited" (in practice up to perhaps 100GB) of landline 
connectivity a month.

Politics is never going to change that, although politics might one day 
change the fact that if I access the Internet on a different part of the 
*same* company's Pan-European 3G network, I would get only about 100MB 
for my $20 (which is an order of magnitude more data than I might have 
got only a few years ago).

>On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-  wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar
>  2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
>    6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>>    criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
>>    language, or economic resources
 >
>  If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges
>  should be the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available
>  anywhere in the world, then I'm sure you will get a great deal of
>  support.
>
>  The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the
>  mobile networks".

-- 
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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Mar  8 06:44:03 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:44:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>




> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
> education policy making, and so on...


The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this 
for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done 
without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on 
the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder 
offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this 
process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been 
going on in secret.

jeanette


> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>
> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be
> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing
> here.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>> public administration.
>>
>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>> representatives .
>>
>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>
>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>
>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
>> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big
>> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
>> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
>> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is
>> happening now.
>>
>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
>> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>
>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>> contributing so strongly to...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>
>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>
>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>
>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models
>>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>> Joy
>>>>
>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>
>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>
>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>
>>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making,
>>>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
>>>> statements.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> */
>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes
>>>>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has
>>>>> been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into
>>>>> NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>>>>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joy
>>>>> Joy
>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
>>>>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>>>>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role
>>>>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new
>>>>>>> post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime
>>>>>>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get
>>>>>>> into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is
>>>>>>>> respected and that relevant national legislation complies with
>>>>>>>> their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need
>>>>>>>> to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
>>>>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil
>>>>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator
>>>>>>>> and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility,
>>>>>>>> especially at community level. The private sector and
>>>>>>>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>>>>>>>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>>>>>>>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live
>>>>>>>> up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of
>>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic
>>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved
>>>>>>>> need to work together."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>>>>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions,
>>>>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 06:50:56 2014
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 20:50:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
 <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
 <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
 <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnQmMd7KUPApxhkMovbnjEp+U99NOYWPwuvMzR1WwnPtA@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for
> decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without
> consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU
> level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the
> chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the
> open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>
> jeanette
>
>
Yes, we can also add the example of TPP, TAFTA and likes, which are
negotiated between states without transparency , where private sector is
involved and where civil society is excluded .

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/fab7bc2d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Sat Mar  8 08:38:30 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:08:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <531B1D56.3060903@ITforChange.net>

On 03/08/2014 05:14 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>> education policy making, and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this 
> for decades - but behind closed doors.

Jeanette,

Yes, they have been doing such  acts in India as well in many ways, 
which often border on the unethical/illegal - essentially it is lobbying 
for private interest to triumph public interest.  This is a serious 
problem. do you agree it is wrong and should be resisted/opposed.

> National legislation is not done without consulting with industries 
> affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the 
> draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the 
> consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so 
> that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.

Since robbery is happening, daylight robbery is better ! this is not 
what civil society position ought to be.

Civil society would certainly need to oppose closed door/secret 
lobbying,  and strongly push for public policy that promotes public 
interest, made through transparent processes.  This is how CS acts in 
other spaces. CS certainly ought not welcome private interest actively 
being pushed in policy making on the fatuous ground that it is anyways 
happening - this logic can be used to justify any wrong!   (the argument 
is not about 'consultation', it is about offering private sector an 
equal footing in the public policy making processes)

CS that connects to larger civil society constituencies,  is clear about 
the ethical basis of its work, and its normative role in promoting 
public interest will have nothing to do with these kinds of compromised 
positions/reasoning. And imho, the real/underlying problem with the some 
of these "CS"  positions in the IG space, is in it being so compromised 
as to condone obvious wrong and offer such simplistic reasoning.  And I 
believe that the large scale use of ICANN tax revenues as well as the 
untaxed profits of the Google's often funds these kind of 
positions/organisations and seriously distorts CS work/role. (I remember 
Norbert raised transparency of funding sources as a serious concern but 
he was simply shouted down)

Guru

>
> jeanette


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 09:16:05 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 06:16:05 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com>

So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net




> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in 
> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you 
> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - 
> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in 
> education policy making, and so on...


The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.

jeanette


> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>
> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may 
> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to 
> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis 
> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are 
> embracing here.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical 
>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy 
>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that 
>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and 
>> public administration.
>>
>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being 
>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for 
>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in 
>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business 
>> representatives .
>>
>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex 
>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify 
>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry 
>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain 
>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But 
>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>
>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public 
>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>
>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political 
>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points 
>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a 
>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards 
>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is 
>> what is happening now.
>>
>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in 
>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where 
>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it 
>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the 
>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at 
>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at 
>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then 
>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>
>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a 
>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact 
>> contributing so strongly to...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, 
>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>
>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some 
>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that 
>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>
>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how 
>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and 
>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or 
>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and 
>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>
>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional 
>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be 
>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it 
>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where 
>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>> Joy
>>>>
>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>
>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that 
>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same 
>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public 
>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>
>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>
>>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy 
>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its 
>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And 
>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee 
>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed 
>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> */
>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder 
>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and 
>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other 
>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to 
>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward 
>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and 
>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this 
>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission 
>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder 
>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joy
>>>>> Joy
>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and 
>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with 
>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil 
>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government 
>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international 
>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its 
>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties 
>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic 
>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of 
>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent 
>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the 
>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as 
>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest 
>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be 
>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the 
>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder 
>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's 
>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with 
>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies 
>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at 
>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different 
>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all 
>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and 
>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of 
>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can 
>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At 
>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it 
>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, 
>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about 
>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and 
>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in 
>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and 
>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that 
>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not 
>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to 
>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet 
>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this 
>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - 
>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the 
>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also 
>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, 
>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term 
>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in 
>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, 
>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable 
>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur 
>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the 
>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for 
>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not 
>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the 
>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave 
>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream 
>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed 
>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib 
>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like 
>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in 
>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And 
>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the 
>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to 
>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC 
>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most 
>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on 
>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is 
>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of 
>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related 
>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for 
>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to 
>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law 
>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies 
>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they 
>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in 
>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. 
>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a 
>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and 
>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector 
>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly 
>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and 
>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In 
>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and 
>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all 
>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT 
>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 
>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For 
>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 09:20:00 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:50:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <2aKUkvzfzvGTFAh2@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2aKUkvzfzvGTFAh2@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <144a2107f10.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Funnily enough carriers in india have been slashing International data 
roaming charges and T-Mobile has post paid packages with free international 
data roaming.

So even that is changing and will change faster as a lot more moves away 
from traditional phone systems to voip



On 8 March 2014 4:51:28 PM Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> 
wrote:

> In message 
> <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA at mail.gmail.com>, at 
> 20:00:17 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
> >I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic
> >development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those
> >lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you
> >as a "pragmatic aspiration"?
>
> I'm fully supportive of removing *artificial* cost barriers that affect 
> regions.
>
> But I remember when by far the biggest cost of setting up an ISP (and hence 
> the biggest cost to my subscribers) in the UK was leasing a transatlantic 
> connection to New York. Every sent to or from another user in the UK went 
> via New York.
>
> For reasons such as this, the *inherent* cost of providing access differs 
> enormously depending on the geography and (the point I was making earlier) 
> the local loop technology used, even within a developed country such as the UK.
>
> Very approximately, $20 will buy me 1GB of 3G/4G connectivity a month, or 
> "unlimited" (in practice up to perhaps 100GB) of landline connectivity a month.
>
> Politics is never going to change that, although politics might one day 
> change the fact that if I access the Internet on a different part of the 
> *same* company's Pan-European 3G network, I would get only about 100MB for 
> my $20 (which is an order of magnitude more data than I might have got only 
> a few years ago).
>
> >On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry 
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> >  In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-  
> wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar
> >  2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
> >    6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
> >>    criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
> >>    language, or economic resources
>  >
> >  If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges
> >  should be the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available
> >  anywhere in the world, then I'm sure you will get a great deal of
> >  support.
> >
> >  The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the
> >  mobile networks".
>
> --
> 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 suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar  8 09:31:02 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 20:01:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B1D56.3060903@ITforChange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
 <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
 <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
 <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
 <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
 <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
 <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
 <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
 <531B1D56.3060903@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <144a21a9ce8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Lobbying is also engaged in by civil society groups with more funding 
available to them.

The rest.. well, they make do with activism, the cheaper and noisier form 
of lobbying that is most accessible to them.

In both cases the intended end result is to affect a change in public policy.

You will also find several groups across all stakeholder communities, yes, 
including industry, that have a strict no lobbying rule but an active 
public policy agenda.

This simply means that such groups restrict themselves to making focused 
and informed submissions to governments, but without the added high decibel 
or high dollar amount push canvassing support for a specific agenda that 
crosses the border into activism or lobbying.

No astroturfing like boilerplate letters that you encourage visitors to 
your site to send to their senator at the click of a button, no noisy 
picketing of politicians and equally no wining, dining all the way to the 
proverbial suitcase stuffed with unmarked bills.




On 8 March 2014 7:09:04 PM Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:

> On 03/08/2014 05:14 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
> >> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
> >> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
> >> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
> >> education policy making, and so on...
> >
> >
> > The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for 
> decades - but behind closed doors.
>
> Jeanette,
>
> Yes, they have been doing such  acts in India as well in many ways, which 
> often border on the unethical/illegal - essentially it is lobbying for 
> private interest to triumph public interest.  This is a serious problem. do 
> you agree it is wrong and should be resisted/opposed.
>
> > National legislation is not done without consulting with industries 
> affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the 
> draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the 
> consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that 
> everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>
> Since robbery is happening, daylight robbery is better ! this is not what 
> civil society position ought to be.
>
> Civil society would certainly need to oppose closed door/secret lobbying,  
> and strongly push for public policy that promotes public interest, made 
> through transparent processes.  This is how CS acts in other spaces. CS 
> certainly ought not welcome private interest actively being pushed in 
> policy making on the fatuous ground that it is anyways happening - this 
> logic can be used to justify any wrong!   (the argument is not about 
> 'consultation', it is about offering private sector an equal footing in the 
> public policy making processes)
>
> CS that connects to larger civil society constituencies,  is clear about 
> the ethical basis of its work, and its normative role in promoting public 
> interest will have nothing to do with these kinds of compromised 
> positions/reasoning. And imho, the real/underlying problem with the some of 
> these "CS"  positions in the IG space, is in it being so compromised as to 
> condone obvious wrong and offer such simplistic reasoning.  And I believe 
> that the large scale use of ICANN tax revenues as well as the untaxed 
> profits of the Google's often funds these kind of positions/organisations 
> and seriously distorts CS work/role. (I remember Norbert raised 
> transparency of funding sources as a serious concern but he was simply 
> shouted down)
>
> Guru
>
> >
> > jeanette
>
>



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 09:48:43 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 20:18:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
 <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
 <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
 <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
 <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
 <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
 <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
 <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
 <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <144a22ab600.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an 
opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at it.

I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.



On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically 
> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. 
> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not 
> only legal but compulsory?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
>
> > Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in multistakeholder 
> policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma companies, 
> for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making - health and drug 
> policies, and big publishers in education policy making, and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for 
> decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without 
> consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU 
> level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the 
> chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the 
> open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> > If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
> >
> > Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be 
> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control, for 
> instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for 
> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
> > Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing 
> here.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >>
> >> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical 
> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy authority 
> and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that are rather well 
> worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
> >>
> >> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject 
> to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
> >> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for 
> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in 
> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business 
> representatives .
> >>
> >> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner  
> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties, 
> and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of 
> their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with 
> national political systems. But this system of global public policies still 
> works.)
> >>
> >> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public 
> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
> >>
> >> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions 
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business to 
> exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on 
> some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our 
> social and political existence. This is what is happening now.
> >>
> >> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in 
> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big 
> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The 
> multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by 
> Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level. 
> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such 
> efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is 
> brought to the national levels.
> >>
> >> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a 
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact 
> contributing so strongly to...
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, 
> but it is multi-stakeholder.
> >>>
> >>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some 
> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that 
> different parts of government is represented which his important.
> >>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
> >>>
> >>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public 
> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the 
> traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public 
> consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
> >>>
> >>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models 
> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it 
> does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also 
> propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an 
> inclusive MS space.
> >>>
> >>> Anriette
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
> >>>> Joy
> >>>>
> >>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  
> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as gov 
> participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
> >>>>
> >>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
> >>>>
> >>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
> >>>>
> >>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy 
> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I 
> hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> */
> >>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> >>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
> >>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> >>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
> >>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
> >>>>>     internet governance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes 
> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on 
> record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
> >>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
> >>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents 
> and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet 
> governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, 
> including human rights.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> >>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
> relevant to internet governance
> >>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
> doing so; and
> >>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore 
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they 
> can of course be involved/consulted) .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> >>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
> which is relevant to internet governance
> >>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
> parity with each other when doing so;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which 
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is 
> considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights 
> (among others) are relevant to them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>>>> Dear all
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the 
> use of 'multilateral'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the 
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and 
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent 
> role in relation to international internet governance."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines 
> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the 
> private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single 
> government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international 
> internet governance."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term 
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among 
> governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly 
> did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government 
> should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other 
> stakeholders too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's 
> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and 
> equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making 
> process." Well of course.
> >>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
> >>>>>>>>>> BUT...
> >>>>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from what is 
> meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
> >>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all 
> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov 
> reps) in making decisions about public policies.
> >>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of 
> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was 
> "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", 
> which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we 
> all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in 
> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov 
> actors....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this 
> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder 
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
> multilateral and democratic. "
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this 
> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not 
> come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also 
> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
> principles, and G 8 principles....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term either does 
> not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to 
> democracy (the other two docs)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in 
> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder participation 
> */" (emphasis added)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone 
> and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know 
> which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to 
> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of 
> the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic 
> world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a 
> good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the 
> powerful warriors of the neolib order.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
> >>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see 
> how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at 
> present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the 
> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point 
> today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too 
> difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
> submission to NetMundial
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
> people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy 
> issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic 
> legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure 
> that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation 
> complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they 
> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of 
> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, 
> and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of 
> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private 
> sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, 
> and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials 
> for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to 
> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, 
> all stakeholders involved need to work together."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 
> advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org 
> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 10:48:03 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:48:03 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <144a22ab600.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <144a22ab600.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <173001cf3ae5$cb6724d0$62356e70$@gmail.com>

Maybe I'm wrong and I would be delighted to see one of the MSists actually
come out with a clear articulation of what they mean by MSism or a MS
process but my understanding is that MSism is where the various
"stakeholders" i.e. the private sector among others have a direct role in
deciding (i.e. have direct inputs into consensus outputs) concerning issues
of public policy significance arising out of Internet developments. 

What that means to me is that for example, Amazon gets to have a direct
input into establishing global taxation policy related to the Internet,
Google as a "stakeholder" is directly involved in establishing global policy
concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Facebook as a matter of stakeholder
"rights" helps determine global standards and regulation concerning privacy
and so on and so on. Perhaps one of the guru's of MSism--Wolfgang, Bertrand,
Jeanette--might explain exactly where I've misunderstood.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; bestbits; michael
gurstein
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an
opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at
it.

I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.



On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically 
> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, 
> not only legal but compulsory?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette 
> Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
>
> > Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in 
> > multistakeholder
> policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma 
> companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making - 
> health and drug policies, and big publishers in education policy making,
and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this 
> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not 
> done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, 
> particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. 
> Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process 
> and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what
has been going on in secret.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> > If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
'difference'?
> >
> > Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet 
> > may be
> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control, 
> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for 
> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
> > Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are 
> > embracing
> here.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >>
> >> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy 
> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that 
> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public
administration.
> >>
> >> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being 
> >> subject
> to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
> >> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in 
> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business 
> representatives .
> >>
> >> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex 
> >> manner
> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international 
> treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, 
> the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex 
> interplay with national political systems. But this system of global 
> public policies still
> works.)
> >>
> >> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
> >>
> >> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political 
> >> definitions
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big 
> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is 
> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover 
> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is happening
now.
> >>
> >> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big 
> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it 
> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the 
> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the
global level.
> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. 
> Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this 
> models is brought to the national levels.
> >>
> >> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into 
> >> a
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact 
> contributing so strongly to...
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite 
> >>> formal,
> but it is multi-stakeholder.
> >>>
> >>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that 
> different parts of government is represented which his important.
> >>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
> >>>
> >>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how 
> >>> public
> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go 
> beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without 
> public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
approving/rejecting'.
> >>>
> >>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional 
> >>> models
> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where 
> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should 
> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually 
> done in an inclusive MS space.
> >>>
> >>> Anriette
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
> >>>> Joy
> >>>>
> >>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil 
> >>>> society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov 
> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as 
> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
> >>>>
> >>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
> >>>>
> >>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
> >>>>
> >>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy 
> >>>> making,
> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
statements.
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And 
> >>>> Joy
> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on 
> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
withdrawn. Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> */
> >>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> >>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter 
> >>>>> the
> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
> >>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> >>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
> >>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
> >>>>>     internet governance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder 
> >>>>> processes
> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been 
> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
> >>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
> >>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other 
> >>>>> documents
> and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet 
> governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, 
> including human rights.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing 
> >>>>> the
> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> >>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
> relevant to internet governance
> >>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other 
> >>>>> when
> doing so; and
> >>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and 
> >>>>> therefore
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though 
> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines 
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public 
> >>>>> policy
> which is relevant to internet governance
> >>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing 
> >>>>> or
> parity with each other when doing so;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission 
> >>>>> which
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation 
> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>>>> Dear all
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter 
> >>>>>> and the
> use of 'multilateral'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, 
> >>>>>> with the
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and 
> international organisations. No single government should have a 
> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its 
> >>>>>> dictionary
> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic 
> >>>>>> defines
> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, 
> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No 
> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to 
> international internet governance."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the 
> >>>>>> term
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning 
> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we 
> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no 
> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement 
> of other stakeholders too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder 
> >>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect 
> to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
> decision-making process." Well of course.
> >>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the 
> >>>>>>>>>> proposed
> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
> >>>>>>>>>> BUT...
> >>>>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from what 
> is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
> >>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as 
> gov
> reps) in making decisions about public policies.
> >>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion 
> >>>>>>>>> of
> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it 
> was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder
roles should be.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
non-democracy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov 
> actors....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that 
> >>>>>>> this
> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder 
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to 
> >>>>>>> multilateral
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
> multilateral and democratic. "
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does 
> not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle
inspirations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
> principles, and G 8 principles....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term either 
> does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary 
> fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' 
> >>>>>>> in
> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder 
> participation */" (emphasis added)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did 
> >>>>>>> the
> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to 
> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... 
> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from
this doc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy 
> >>>>>>> not to
> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end 
> of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post 
> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a 
> pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan 
> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like 
> >>>>>>> equitable
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
> >>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And 
> >>>>>>> see
> how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime 
> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into 
> the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC 
> >>>>>>>> got
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt
it...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
> submission to NetMundial
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of 
> >>>>>>>> the
> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate 
> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical 
> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to 
> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and 
> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and 
> particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the 
> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to 
> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, 
> access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a
knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT 
> >>>>>>>>> policy
> advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org 
> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar  8 11:11:52 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:11:52 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <144a2107f10.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2aKUkvzfzvGTFAh2@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <144a2107f10.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <ozvD+O5IF0GTFARs@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<144a2107f10.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 
19:50:00 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>Funnily enough carriers in india have been slashing International data 
>roaming charges and T-Mobile has post paid packages with free 
>international data roaming.

Completely free of charge, or just at no extra cost compared to domestic 
data?

I can't see how International data roaming could ever sustainably be 
cheaper than the domestic data charges in the country you are roaming 
to. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure there.

>So even that is changing and will change faster as a lot more moves 
>away from traditional phone systems to voip

Mobile networks rely on high voice-call roaming costs too. If they are 
losing international business to voip, it could be a reason for 
competition to reduce the voice call costs.

>On 8 March 2014 4:51:28 PM Roland Perry 
><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> In message 
>><CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA at mail.gmail.com>, 
>>at  20:00:17 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
>> >I suspect the proponent means to refer to the level of economic
>> >development of a region or a group pf people, or something along those
>> >lines. Is there a formulation that would make it more acceptable to you
>> >as a "pragmatic aspiration"?
>>
>> I'm fully supportive of removing *artificial* cost barriers that 
>>affect  regions.
>>
>> But I remember when by far the biggest cost of setting up an ISP (and 
>>hence  the biggest cost to my subscribers) in the UK was leasing a 
>>transatlantic  connection to New York. Every sent to or from another 
>>user in the UK went  via New York.
>>
>> For reasons such as this, the *inherent* cost of providing access 
>>differs  enormously depending on the geography and (the point I was 
>>making earlier)  the local loop technology used, even within a 
>>developed country such as the UK.
>>
>> Very approximately, $20 will buy me 1GB of 3G/4G connectivity a 
>>month, or  "unlimited" (in practice up to perhaps 100GB) of landline 
>>connectivity a month.
>>
>> Politics is never going to change that, although politics might one 
>>day  change the fact that if I access the Internet on a different part 
>>of the  *same* company's Pan-European 3G network, I would get only 
>>about 100MB for  my $20 (which is an order of magnitude more data than 
>>I might have got only  a few years ago).
>>
>> >On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Roland Perry
>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> >  In message <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-
>> wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g at mail.gmail.com>, at 14:55:15 on Fri, 7 Mar
>> >  2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> writes
>> >    6- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
>> >>    criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
>> >>    language, or economic resources
>>  >
>> >  If this means that everyone's international 3G roaming charges
>> >  should be the same as buying the cheapest local-SIM available
>> >  anywhere in the world, then I'm sure you will get a great deal of
>> >  support.
>> >
>> >  The only question remaining being "who will break this news to the
>> >  mobile networks".
>>
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
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 hindenburgo at gmail.com  Sat Mar  8 11:24:26 2014
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 13:24:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] Contribution to NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYroSjZLPFS1W9v2MGXq0VUae8CFQuCn9dohrrUKBJ8aeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYroSjZLPFS1W9v2MGXq0VUae8CFQuCn9dohrrUKBJ8aeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPM93kV38oMjEC+n0-JZr4hU73nza4txyyc5mtx3rPogwytjYQ@mail.gmail.com>

*+ 1* Dear Louis Pouzin,

Congratulations for the excellent work.
His work is an important contribution to produce a different Internet
Governance.
We also submitted our work in the NetMundial site.
Also hopefully see you at this event.

-- 
Hindenburgo Pires

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Departamento de Geografia Humana
*Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org <http://www.cibergeo.org/>*


*Roadmaps for a multilateral decentralized Internet Governance*

*Abstract*
This document, based on the proposals announced by the Brazilian State in
the Assembly of the
United Nations, in September 24, 2013, and by the representation of the
European Commission, in
February 12, 2014, from considerations about the scenarios of uncertainty
and mistrust of the
Internet Governance, proposes roadmaps for + 1the construction of a
different model.
*Key words:* Internet Governance, Multilateral and Decentralized
Governance, Net Neutrality,
Cyberspace.


2014-03-07 7:18 GMT-03:00 Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> Here attached is the contribution I made to the Brazil meeting as an
> individual. All opinions are welcome.
>
> Caveat: inter-paragraph space in the NetMundial site is rather
> unpredictable.
>
> Louis
> - - -
>
>
> *Internet Governance; what next ?*
> Abstract.
>
> Internet Governance has been the topic of endless discussion since the
> WSIS preparation was launched in 2001. Most States insist on having equal
> say in decisions bearing not only on technical matters, but also on public
> policy, and economic and societal matters, at both national and
> international level. However, the United States Government (USG) remains
> fully determined to retain unilateral control over the internet. While
> discussions may go on for any number of years, countries and citizens
> around the world cannot afford to remain sitting ducks unable to control
> their future. This paper explores possible actions they may take, without
> the USG approval, to protect their human rights and sovereignty, and to
> acquire some bargaining power in the internet realpolitik.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Departamento de Geografia Humana
*Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org <http://www.cibergeo.org>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/98d80c08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HIndenburgo_Pires_Roadmaps_for_a multilateral_governance_and_decentralized_Internet.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 82644 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/98d80c08/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Mar  8 14:57:11 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:57:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <C9138E3A-BCC4-4A09-BCA6-B827EDFC5763@mail.utoronto.ca>

+1  Stephanie
On 2014-03-08, at 6:44 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>> education policy making, and so on...
> 
> 
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>> 
>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be
>> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
>> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
>> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing
>> here.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>>> 
>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>> public administration.
>>> 
>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>> representatives .
>>> 
>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>> 
>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>> 
>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
>>> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big
>>> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
>>> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
>>> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is
>>> happening now.
>>> 
>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
>>> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>> 
>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>> 
>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>> 
>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>> 
>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models
>>>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>>>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>>>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>>>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>> Joy
>>>>> 
>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>> 
>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making,
>>>>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
>>>>> statements.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> /*
>>>>> */
>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>    internet governance.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes
>>>>>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has
>>>>>> been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into
>>>>>> NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>>>>>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
>>>>>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>>>>>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role
>>>>>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new
>>>>>>>> post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime
>>>>>>>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get
>>>>>>>> into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is
>>>>>>>>> respected and that relevant national legislation complies with
>>>>>>>>> their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need
>>>>>>>>> to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
>>>>>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil
>>>>>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator
>>>>>>>>> and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility,
>>>>>>>>> especially at community level. The private sector and
>>>>>>>>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>>>>>>>>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>>>>>>>>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live
>>>>>>>>> up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of
>>>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic
>>>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved
>>>>>>>>> need to work together."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>>>>>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions,
>>>>>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>>> www.apc.org
>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>> south africa
>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Mar  8 15:09:43 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 21:09:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu>

I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.

In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare 
legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to 
think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without 
external influence.
There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around 
since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially 
accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials 
often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they 
regulate.

Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to 
intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of 
commercial lobbying.

jeanette

Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
>
>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>> education policy making, and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>
>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>> embracing here.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>> public administration.
>>>
>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>> representatives .
>>>
>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>
>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>
>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>> what is happening now.
>>>
>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>
>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>
>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>
>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>> Joy
>>>>>
>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>
>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> */
>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>      the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>      society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>      should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>      internet governance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar  8 15:10:57 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 21:10:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <C9138E3A-BCC4-4A09-BCA6-B827EDFC5763@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <C9138E3A-BCC4-4A09-BCA6-B827EDFC5763@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <47433660-907B-48F1-81A7-23F5C6F93C19@theglobaljournal.net>

Jeanette, Stephanie,

So the positive effect of Multistakeholderism is about turning into an ordinary practice what has been going on in secret for years 

i.e. making  corrupted process acceptable to the mass because it would conducted in plain light.

What a progress!!!!

The fact that Pharma Labs have been able to even write legislation is not something we should accept. They were able to do that because of their big $. Some Internet Barons are having the same money power to influence (write) legislation. Is this where all of that Multistakeholderism is leading us? Should we rejoice? 

Or is it that corruption in plain light is no longer corruption?

Instead of legitimating corruption, we should fight against these  practices.

JC

Le 8 mars 2014 à 20:57, Stephanie Perrin a écrit :

> +1  Stephanie
> On 2014-03-08, at 6:44 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>> education policy making, and so on...
>> 
>> 
>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>> 
>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be
>>> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
>>> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
>>> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing
>>> here.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>> public administration.
>>>> 
>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>> representatives .
>>>> 
>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>> 
>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
>>>> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big
>>>> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
>>>> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
>>>> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is
>>>> happening now.
>>>> 
>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
>>>> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>> 
>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models
>>>>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>>>>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>>>>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>>>>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making,
>>>>>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>   the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>   society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>   should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>   internet governance.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes
>>>>>>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has
>>>>>>> been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into
>>>>>>> NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>>>>>>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
>>>>>>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>>>>>>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role
>>>>>>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new
>>>>>>>>> post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime
>>>>>>>>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get
>>>>>>>>> into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is
>>>>>>>>>> respected and that relevant national legislation complies with
>>>>>>>>>> their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need
>>>>>>>>>> to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
>>>>>>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil
>>>>>>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator
>>>>>>>>>> and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility,
>>>>>>>>>> especially at community level. The private sector and
>>>>>>>>>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>>>>>>>>>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>>>>>>>>>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live
>>>>>>>>>> up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of
>>>>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic
>>>>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved
>>>>>>>>>> need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>>>>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions,
>>>>>>>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>>>> www.apc.org
>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>>> south africa
>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/35a65f7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sat Mar  8 15:57:29 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 21:57:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>

Jeanette,

The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying, 

Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?

On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...

At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
No civil servants, no civil society...
So who's able?
Corporate servants, corporate society..

With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?

All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.

Jeanette,

All of this is really going insane.

Michael is so right

JC


Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
> 
> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
> 
> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>> education policy making, and so on...
>> 
>> 
>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>> 
>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>> embracing here.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>> public administration.
>>>> 
>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>> representatives .
>>>> 
>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>> 
>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>> what is happening now.
>>>> 
>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>> 
>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Mar  8 16:35:38 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:35:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>

If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regulation making, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
Stephanie Perrin
PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:

> Jeanette,
> 
> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying, 
> 
> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
> 
> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
> 
> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
> No civil servants, no civil society...
> So who's able?
> Corporate servants, corporate society..
> 
> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
> 
> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
> 
> Jeanette,
> 
> All of this is really going insane.
> 
> Michael is so right
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>> 
>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>> 
>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>> 
>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>> embracing here.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>> public administration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>> representatives .
>>>>> 
>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>    internet governance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
>>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 16:46:19 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 09:46:19 +1200
Subject: [governance] Women's Rights What Have We Achieved?
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAOryp-PF2pqZSbhC9+2oo87=XsP5GuHJCgf0s_HeQVag@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Here is a link to an article on the Guardian on Women's Rights What Have We
Achieved?

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/mar/08/womens-rights-what-have-we-achieved-in-the-last-20-years

It contains reflections from some women across the world.

Kind Regards,
Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140309/2d9a2496/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar  8 17:12:01 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:12:01 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <17bb01cf3b1b$6e92e470$4bb8ad50$@gmail.com>

Stephanie,

I have no problem at all with what you are describing as "MSism" which I see
as a necessary and desirable enhancement of consultation processes within a
broad democratic decision-making framework.
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-proc
esses/

Where I do have problems however are:	
1. I'm never clear precisely what is meant by MSism in any particular
context since its advocates seem to pull definitions out of the air to suit
whatever supports their position of the moment. Your explication of what you
mean is very useful and I would think unproblematic but is I would suggest
not universally shared in MSist circles. Some clarity in this would be
desirable otherwise we are being asked to accept a "pig in a poke" in some
highly crucial areas.  (These were the basis of the questions I posed
earlier and which to date have yet to be addressed.)

2. MSism in this, our context is not exclusively about consultation
processes but rather and more frequently about public policy decision making
processes with the notions of MSism determining who is at the table (the
various "stakeholders") and where the designated process is one of
"consensus" which means in fact that any of the "stakeholders" gets to veto
and thus largely determine the outcome decision. In this latter process how
and by whom "stakeholders" are designated (or self-designate), their
internal processes of selection (and exclusion), the overall transparency
and accountability of these processes of course, becomes absolutely crucial
since the outcome of these MS processes will be determined by those having
inputs into those processes and if those processes are flawed or corrupted
then the outputs will be flawed or corrupted.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:36 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal
Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we
are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the
impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days
is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say,
(in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations,
you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty
activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world
markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this
knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your
proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking
to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where
multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up
multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or
normal government regulation making, the involvement of all stakeholders can
vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to
nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only
with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and
human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are
sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.
My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or
rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is
more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time,
money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the
process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair
and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a
stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very
clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to be a more open
and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to
support it and make it better.
Stephanie Perrin
PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are
indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with
positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than
argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment
on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help
mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
wrote:

> Jeanette,
> 
> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
> 
> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation
without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to
conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not
able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is
this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons?
And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding
of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these
governance and Best bits listing?
> 
> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to
counterbalance big corps...
> 
> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder
prism?
> No civil servants, no civil society...
> So who's able?
> Corporate servants, corporate society..
> 
> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you
bother with civil servants and civil society?
> 
> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a
multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
> 
> Jeanette,
> 
> All of this is really going insane.
> 
> Michael is so right
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>> 
>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare
legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to
think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without
external influence.
>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around
since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited
with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire
the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>> 
>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to
intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial
lobbying.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
"shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only
legal but compulsory?
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette 
>>> Hofmann
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in 
>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you 
>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - 
>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in 
>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done
without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the
EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the
chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open
daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
'difference'?
>>>> 
>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet 
>>>> may be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to 
>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough 
>>>> basis for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the
national level?
>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are 
>>>> embracing here.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical 
>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy 
>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas 
>>>>> that are rather well worked out in the texts of political science 
>>>>> and public administration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being 
>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for 
>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in 
>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business 
>>>>> representatives .
>>>>> 
>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex 
>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify 
>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry 
>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application 
>>>>> remain in a somewhat complex interplay with national political 
>>>>> systems. But this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake 
>>>>> public policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political 
>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry 
>>>>> points for big business to exercise formal political power..... 
>>>>> Once such a role is established on some areas, then this power 
>>>>> migrates upwards to cover all areas of our social and political 
>>>>> existence. This is what is happening now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in 
>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where 
>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where 
>>>>> it cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance 
>>>>> the one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet 
>>>>> policies at the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in 
>>>>> any sector at the global level. Such efforts are of course already 
>>>>> afoot. And then gradually this models is brought to the national
levels.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge 
>>>>> into a neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, 
>>>>> and in fact contributing so strongly to...
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite 
>>>>>> formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard 
>>>>>> some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does 
>>>>>> mean that different parts of government is represented which his
important.
>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how 
>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder 
>>>>>> and go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with 
>>>>>> or without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing 
>>>>>> and approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional 
>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be 
>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it 
>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where 
>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil 
>>>>>>> society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold 
>>>>>>> that non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on 
>>>>>>> the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually 
>>>>>>> /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy 
>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its 
>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. 
>>>>>>> And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering 
>>>>>>> committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and 
>>>>>>> when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter 
>>>>>>>> the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>    internet governance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder 
>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary 
>>>>>>>> and APC has been on record in many spaces to support 
>>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other 
>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant 
>>>>>>>> to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken 
>>>>>>>> forward into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing 
>>>>>>>> the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other 
>>>>>>>> when doing so; and
>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and 
>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments 
>>>>>>>> this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public 
>>>>>>>> policy which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing 
>>>>>>>> or parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission 
>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance 
>>>>>>>> principles NetMundial is considering, equitable 
>>>>>>>> multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are
relevant to them.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter 
>>>>>>>>> and the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, 
>>>>>>>>> with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, 
>>>>>>>>> civil society and international organisations. No single 
>>>>>>>>> government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to 
>>>>>>>>> international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its 
>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple 
>>>>>>>>> parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the
'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic 
>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement 
>>>>>>>>> of governments, the private sector, civil society and 
>>>>>>>>> international organisations. No single government should have 
>>>>>>>>> a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
governance."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the 
>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood 
>>>>>>>>> as meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to 
>>>>>>>>> suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments 
>>>>>>>>> should be involved, and that no one government should dominate 
>>>>>>>>> - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with respect to Internet governance should only be made by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodies that allow free and equitable access to all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process."
Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the
submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from what is meant in the above statement from
1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which 
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can read for yourself: 
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became 
>>>>>>>>>>>> "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how
equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and 
>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in 
>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov 
>>>>>>>>>>> and non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs 
>>>>>>>>>> that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but 
>>>>>>>>>> not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to 
>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet 
>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this 
>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation 
>>>>>>>>>> - does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be 
>>>>>>>>>> the principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also 
>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br 
>>>>>>>>>> Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) 
>>>>>>>>>> term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much 
>>>>>>>>>> much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by 
>>>>>>>>>> civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' 
>>>>>>>>>> in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key 
>>>>>>>>>> governance characteristics" you could think only of " 
>>>>>>>>>> openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and 
>>>>>>>>>> /*equitable multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis 
>>>>>>>>>> added)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did 
>>>>>>>>>> the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did 
>>>>>>>>>> it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find 
>>>>>>>>>> favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both 
>>>>>>>>>> are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy 
>>>>>>>>>> not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This 
>>>>>>>>>> is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into 
>>>>>>>>>> a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo 
>>>>>>>>>> liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil 
>>>>>>>>>> society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful 
>>>>>>>>>> warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like 
>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained 
>>>>>>>>>> in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. 
>>>>>>>>>> And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is 
>>>>>>>>>> the prime objective at present of the US supported status 
>>>>>>>>>> quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from
NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the 
>>>>>>>>>>> single most important point today, if we can clarify nd 
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... 
>>>>>>>>>>> Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative 
>>>>>>>>>>> of the people, possess public authority including 
>>>>>>>>>>> internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be 
>>>>>>>>>>> the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure 
>>>>>>>>>>> that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national 
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation complies with their obligations under 
>>>>>>>>>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the 
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and
technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a 
>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and 
>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private 
>>>>>>>>>>> sector and particularly the technical community 
>>>>>>>>>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, 
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should 
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the 
>>>>>>>>>>> potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of 
>>>>>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic 
>>>>>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved
need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT 
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For 
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, 
>>>>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 
>>>>>> 29755, melville
>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar  8 17:37:34 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 22:37:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <531A912F.1080603@itforchange.net>
References: <6f884b6c31c746c49eeba1209cf13d42@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<D7F04D45-08B3-48A7-A0F4-13C6ABE934C6@ghana.com>
	<6435223fdac74dc98d0def6c100d215a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<5315E93C.5040207@oracle.com>
	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A7D70@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
	<AD361958-8699-4F15-AE12-F0020F5D2EC7@glocom.ac.jp>
	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A810B@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
	<08C2D3F2-0FE0-45A1-93EE-22B4C6236D91@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v_66oz2dqCn7OsgWeKBZ_kcQwb709RWamGERKWVq4Azgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<ac37b772eb12475f976a773646e52b4a@BL2PR01MB529.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CANwsP3CrB2gX0+w28wX+h0N32DgWjXJGbOKxG2Njpigkg7nNGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<e86f1add6c4a4825a71ac42f63f4f4a1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <CACTo+v_W31sp_FfF87poax92KJGjp4tovGrFVXuYeAXEQmi82A@mail.gmail.com>
 <531A912F.1080603@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <057fbb05f5e74e98b1dade333c299886@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

>Everyone's eye is on the one big knotty problem on the CIR side of global IG - the >oversight of ICANN..... It is not clear whether Milton and Brenden's proposal at all >attempts to solve this problem.

Oh, it is _very_ clear that we do NOT attempt to solve or comprehensively reform ICANN as policy maker. We _explicitly_ say so and in fact make it a principle: the globalization of the IANA functions should be separated from the reform of ICANN's policy making process. They are two distinct problems. They cannot be solved at once.

> They wish to create a new entity with an extremely unclear status, role and
> authority.

Uh, no. the DNSA  has a very clear status, very clear role, and very clear authority. I presume you have read the proposal.

>- and that too with no oversight above it at all, which seems to make this control > rather absolute, whether Milton and Brenden actually say this or not.

Odd, we thought you might like the idea that oversight of the DNSA would involve every ccTLD and gTLD in the world, including those that are state owned or regulated, those that are multistakeholder, those that are private. You seem to be impervious to the fact that accurate and secure root zone management is in the direct self-interest of TLD registries as a group. (You do know what a TLD registry is, don't you?)

> However, at the same time is seems that this new entity is
> the Principal in the implied contract, which it can award to

I guessed you missed the messages in which we directly asserted the opposite. The DNSA is not the principal.

> Evidently, despite the proponents best effort at sugar-coating
> the fact, the new entity would exercise a de facto oversight role
> over ICANN, by being the Principal of the contract between them

DNSA having oversight over ICANN? Only in the sense that if ICANN abused its authority and managed to alienate practically every domain name registry in the world, a DNSA would be in a position to check that abuse by refusing to honor ICANN requests (and bearing the legal consequences). By this logic, one might say that the root server operators currently have oversight authority over the NTIA.

Of course, we do explicitly recognize the need for additional reform that would make ICANN itself more accountable.

> Can a trade association be trusted to exercise such a role?

Characterizing the DNSA as a "trade association" is inaccurate. I would say that it might be "dishonest" also, but based on your comments I cannot be sure whether you have actually read the proposal. So I cannot say whether this error is based on ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.

Parminder, I know of your intense interest in ending unilateral U.S. oversight. Please tell me what you replace it with if you don't like our ideas. All I've seen from you so far is a purely ideological call for an "immediate end" to the IANA contract, and no specification of any institutional framework for its replacement. A challenge to US unilateral control may have been appropriate in 2005 (of course, IGP was ahead of you there, as usual) but we are well beyond the point where mere finger-pointing and noise-making at a problem produces progress. It's 10 years on, man, and it's time to put up or shut up.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140308/af821007/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From garth.graham at telus.net  Sat Mar  8 18:41:44 2014
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 15:41:44 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <17bb01cf3b1b$6e92e470$4bb8ad50$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <17bb01cf3b1b$6e92e470$4bb8ad50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29A44173-4C13-425F-AC1C-AFD22B7F18B3@telus.net>

Accepting that MS improvement is a desirable, it's important to ask - and then what happens?  In my experience, the governments are really seeking to reduce the "burden" of government. Noticing that MS has enabled the self-regulation of the sector's rule making/decision making, they then fire all the regulators, thus simplifying the pool of stakeholders significantly. 

GG

> On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:12 PM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 2. MSism in this, our context is not exclusively about consultation
> processes but rather and more frequently about public policy decision making
> processes with the notions of MSism determining who is at the table (the
> various "stakeholders") and where the designated process is one of
> "consensus" which means in fact that any of the "stakeholders" gets to veto
> and thus largely determine the outcome decision. In this latter process how
> and by whom "stakeholders" are designated (or self-designate), their
> internal processes of selection (and exclusion), the overall transparency
> and accountability of these processes of course, becomes absolutely crucial
> since the outcome of these MS processes will be determined by those having
> inputs into those processes and if those processes are flawed or corrupted
> then the outputs will be flawed or corrupted

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 19:09:14 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 05:39:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC's NETMundial Submission
In-Reply-To: <ozvD+O5IF0GTFARs@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CACTo+v-cOUa7+2Mn9N1cDHSsJWq=nHvKpaGhbyTSVY9MksXw-A@mail.gmail.com> <A1C79D2E-FF67-4298-A62D-B4E42654F40B@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v9HopxnZKnuR00n-X21oMq-wgxgRy5CDWL5q_+8Fs7H_g@mail.gmail.com> <qQOzmabMifGTFACF@internetpolicyagency.com> <CACTo+v-NWwCNdae3ks_JF2nLqR97KPiE+OpW=MADtENX8CJWeA@mail.gmail.com> <2aKUkvzfzvGTFAh2@internetpolicyagency.com> <144a2107f10.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <ozvD+O5IF0GTFARs@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <975311D0-573A-447F-BDE9-C22C442D9BF2@hserus.net>

Probably using up spare and unused 2g spectrum .. and as always caveat emptor. 2g is quite enough for you to get your email, even now :)

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/t-mobile-makes-data-roaming-free-in-100-countries-128kbps-but-still/

--srs (iPad)

> On 08-Mar-2014, at 21:41, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> 
> In message <144a2107f10.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 19:50:00 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> writes
>> Funnily enough carriers in india have been slashing International data roaming charges and T-Mobile has post paid packages with free international data roaming.
> 
> Completely free of charge, or just at no extra cost compared to domestic data?
> 
> I can't see how International data roaming could ever sustainably be cheaper than the domestic data charges in the country you are roaming to. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure there.
> 
>> So even that is changing and will change faster as a lot more moves away from traditional phone systems to voip
> 
> Mobile networks rely on high voice-call roaming costs too. If they are losing international business to voip, it could be a reason for competition to reduce the voice call costs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140309/2a032c4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar  8 19:20:20 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 05:50:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
In-Reply-To: <057fbb05f5e74e98b1dade333c299886@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <6f884b6c31c746c49eeba1209cf13d42@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D7F04D45-08B3-48A7-A0F4-13C6ABE934C6@ghana.com> <6435223fdac74dc98d0def6c100d215a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5315E93C.5040207@oracle.com> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A7D70@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <AD361958-8699-4F15-AE12-F0020F5D2EC7@glocom.ac.jp> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198A810B@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <08C2D3F2-0FE0-45A1-93EE-22B4C6236D91@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v_66oz2dqCn7OsgWeKBZ_kcQwb709RWamGERKWVq4Azgg@mail.gmail.com> <ac37b772eb12475f976a773646e52b4a@BL2PR01MB529.prod.exchangelabs.com> <CANwsP3CrB2gX0+w28wX+h0N32DgWjXJGbOKxG2Njpigkg7nNGw@mail.gmail.com> <e86f1add6c4a4825a71ac42f63f4f4a1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CACTo+v_W31sp_FfF87poax92KJGjp4tovGrFVXuYeAXEQmi82A@mail.gmail.com> <531A912F.1080603@itforchange.net> <057fbb05f5e74e98b1dade333c299886@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <F24E7AA5-FE41-4032-A20B-E4BFFD1E8230@hserus.net>

> On 09-Mar-2014, at 4:07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > Can a trade association be trusted to exercise such a role?
>  
> Characterizing the DNSA as a “trade association” is inaccurate. I would say that it might be “dishonest” also, but based on your comments I cannot be sure whether you have actually read the proposal. So I cannot say whether this error is based on ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.

Hanlon's razor is a very useful test, except when analyzing political commentary in which inconvenient facts are misstated, glossed over or simply ignored.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140309/189d463c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar  8 19:37:24 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 06:07:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <29A44173-4C13-425F-AC1C-AFD22B7F18B3@telus.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <17bb01cf3b1b$6e92e470$4bb8ad50$@gmail.com> <29A44173-4C13-425F-AC1C-AFD22B7F18B3@telus.net>
Message-ID: <77C107DD-0B41-4BA2-A680-5534247AB59E@hserus.net>

Which sarcastic thought experiment would reduce the "burden" of control.

Seat at the table decision making tends to happen only when a prominent expert AND activist (the terms may be mutually exclusive as we see a lot here and elsewhere) gets made a minister, or as is more usual, is apppointed by the government as an implementing consultant, head of a commission etc.

--srs (iPad)

> On 09-Mar-2014, at 5:11, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net> wrote:
> 
> Accepting that MS improvement is a desirable, it's important to ask - and then what happens?  In my experience, the governments are really seeking to reduce the "burden" of government. Noticing that MS has enabled the self-regulation of the sector's rule making/decision making, they then fire all the regulators, thus simplifying the pool of stakeholders significantly. 
> 
> GG
> 
>> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Mar  9 07:45:11 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:15:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] JustNet Coalition contribution on Roadmap for the
 further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem for Netmundial.br
In-Reply-To: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>
References: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>
Message-ID: <531C5447.5060704@ITforChange.net>

Dear all,

JustNet Coalition has made a submission to NetMundial on Roadmap for the 
further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.
Available on 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 
and also attached.

regards,
Guru

On 03/06/2014 02:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> (I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits and /1net
> mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you receiving multiple
> copies.)
>
> Dear all
>
> Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New Delhi
> of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree that in
> Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and social justice
> must be increased.
>
> This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name "Just
> Net Coalition".
>
> We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and submitted
> it to the NETmundial.br meeting.
>
> Gretings,
> Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140309/a9f34dbe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Just_Net_Coalition_Brazil_Institutional _Framework.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 102404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140309/a9f34dbe/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 10 02:41:45 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:11:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] NRO contribution to Netmundial
Message-ID: <40ef9a3cbecd1284010105ec30138d14.squirrel@webmail.hserus.net>

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nro-contribution-to-netmundial/259


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 10 05:57:41 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:57:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] Agenda EMC call March 10
Message-ID: <01719458-594C-49BF-9467-8D0167E5D6BB@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi everyone,

Agenda for the EMC call starting in about 2 hours. Please let us know if you have any comments about the topics below.  

Over 180 contributions received <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs>. Secretariat will try to produce a zip of all files, I hope with an index (as you can guess from the agenda below, they have a great deal to do.)

Adam



Agenda:
1. Expressions of Interest
    a. Conclude decisions about selection criteria and "overbooking rate"
    b. Next steps: launch Registration form, invitation letters for visa.
    c. Follow up to fill eventual vacancies

2. Travel and accommodation support
    a. Report about call for applications
    b. Discussion about selection criteria
    c. Budget and travel operations (invite LOC member)

3. Invitation to Intergovernmental Organizations
   a. Conclude decisions, review contacts
   b. Approve invitation letter

4. Content Contributions
   a. Final report
   b. Status of content processing and synthesis paper production
   c. Eventual chronogram adjust for:
        i. receive the compilation form Secretariat
        ii. produce the draft for HLMC

5. LOC cross-informations
    a. Remote hubs
    b. Budget

6. Review calendar
    a. Eventual activities during ICANN - Singapore
    b. F2F meeting to finish the first draft on content

END


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

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 06:26:46 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:56:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
Message-ID: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>

Dear all,

Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an 
equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that 
its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds 
information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a 
commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from 
privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought 
to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can 
take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.

regards,
Guru

Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014

  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to 
have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing 
anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition 
Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion 
(Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of 
the country.

Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its 
investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust 
watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for 
competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two 
years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its 
dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found 
violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent 
of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its 
annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 
billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to 
nearly $5 billion.

When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google 
spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the 
Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed 
statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade 
Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for 
users and good for competition.”

A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint 
against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first 
filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. 
Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. 
Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the 
Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.

“That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will 
get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain 
order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the 
software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the 
investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.

source - 
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/b9b66f23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 10 06:48:58 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:18:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <F39BB787-9F5B-43CB-A738-36AC9FFF36B5@hserus.net>

By the same token, Guru, I assume you would be glad to publish the minutes of each and every meeting that you have at IT4Change publicly on your website?  All in the spirit of your version of multistakeholderism of course .. what is sauce for the goose HAS to be sauce for the gander.

--srs (iPad)

> On 10-Mar-2014, at 15:56, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
> 
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country. 
> 
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
> 
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.” 
> 
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. 
> 
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
> 
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/db5dd72a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Mon Mar 10 09:45:30 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:45:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Contributions of the European Commission to the
 NETmundial meeting
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+bBX+8n8n_sZX0qdahGZgCm7-e4SD+mvm8SYgu+KCZdeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

of possible interest to the members of this list, the European Commission
has submitted two contributions to the NETmundial meeting, which will take
place on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

They are available at:

·         Principles:
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176

·         Roadmap:
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177

Best regards,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/a2d419b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Mar 10 10:22:55 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:22:55 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
Message-ID: <1981906494.13467.1394461375742.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k09>




I fully agree with Stephanie's first sentence : civil servants aren't stupid due to their status. Having past over forty years under this status in telecom networks in France, but also in Europe and Africa, I feel rather well with this matter. May I recall that as far as ICT/telecoms are concerned, the State-owned telecom network of France was the first to be fully (and nationwide) digital in the world as soon as the eighties.    





But, what Stephanie (and Jeanette and others) are missing is that most of governement functions -in infrastructure networks particularly- have been given (transferred in the best case) to the private sector in the meantime, hence depriving governements from a large area of competence. Moreover, competition has replaced stepwise deployment of new technologies and planification at national and regional levels.  





In fact, this acknowledgement of incompretence testifies the Machavelian effectiveness of neoliberal policies in the nineties that many/most of CS orgs question and/or strongly condemn, except some ones on our lists. Their effect was even more destructive in DCs -especially in Africa- further to the so called Structural Adaption Programs. 




That's why arguments such as "complexity" and "speed of change" completely fail to explain the rationale of MSHism and thereby vigourously question the latter. 




Another point to be considered in the debate upon MSHism is Public Private Partnetship (PPP). Indeed, PPP is inherent of MSHism. Therefore it would be interesting to investigate in some well known PPPs, and to evaluate their socio-economical impact and consequencies at mid and long term. In telecom/ICT the best self-illustrating example of PPP is the Africa ONE project that the ITU tried to impose to the African countries in the late nineties (see www.ticetsociete.revue.org/1089) and that miserably failed in 2003 (see Annuaire Suisse de Politique du Developpement 2003, p. 113-122). Another example of PPP is the French highway network which deprives the governement from revenues that are generously earned by private societies.




Best regards




Jean-Louis Fullsack


 






> Message du 08/03/14 22:37
> De : "Stephanie Perrin" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" 
> Copie à : "Jeanette Hofmann" , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Objet : Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
> 
> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid. One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation. One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change. Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts, etc. You need to understand world markets and world impacts. You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment. Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism. In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can. In multilateral or normal government regulation making, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing. Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players. Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked. This is documented in political science literature. My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic. There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable. When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to be a more open and inclusive process. I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
> Stephanie Perrin
> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas. It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue. I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
> 
> > Jeanette,
> > 
> > The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying, 
> > 
> > Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
> > 
> > On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
> > 
> > At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
> > No civil servants, no civil society...
> > So who's able?
> > Corporate servants, corporate society..
> > 
> > With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
> > 
> > All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
> > 
> > Jeanette,
> > 
> > All of this is really going insane.
> > 
> > Michael is so right
> > 
> > JC
> > 
> > 
> > Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> > 
> >> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
> >> 
> >> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
> >> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
> >> 
> >> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
> >> 
> >> jeanette
> >> 
> >> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
> >>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
> >>> 
> >>> M
> >>> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> >>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
> >>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
> >>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
> >>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
> >>>> education policy making, and so on...
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
> >>> 
> >>> jeanette
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
> >>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
> >>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
> >>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
> >>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
> >>>> embracing here.
> >>>> 
> >>>> parminder
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
> >>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
> >>>>> authority and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas that
> >>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
> >>>>> public administration.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
> >>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
> >>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
> >>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
> >>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
> >>>>> representatives .
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
> >>>>> manner whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
> >>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
> >>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
> >>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
> >>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
> >>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
> >>>>> definitions regarding public policy etc and then find entry points
> >>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
> >>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
> >>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
> >>>>> what is happening now.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing' in
> >>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
> >>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
> >>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
> >>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
> >>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
> >>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
> >>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> >>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> >>>>> contributing so strongly to...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> parminder
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
> >>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
> >>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
> >>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
> >>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
> >>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
> >>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
> >>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
> >>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
> >>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
> >>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
> >>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
> >>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> >>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
> >>>>>>> non-gov participants(which includes business)should be on the same
> >>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
> >>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual models of such policy
> >>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
> >>>>>>> accompanying statements.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
> >>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
> >>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
> >>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> >>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
> >>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
> >>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> >>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
> >>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
> >>>>>>>> internet governance.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
> >>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable. Quite the contrary and
> >>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
> >>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
> >>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
> >>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
> >>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
> >>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
> >>>>>>>> recommendations are simple, concise and helpful.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
> >>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> >>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
> >>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
> >>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
> >>>>>>>> doing so; and
> >>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
> >>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
> >>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> >>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
> >>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
> >>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
> >>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
> >>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
> >>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
> >>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear all
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
> >>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
> >>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> >>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
> >>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
> >>>>>>>>> internet governance."
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
> >>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
> >>>>>>>>> and multiple countries. We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
> >>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
> >>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> >>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> >>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
> >>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
> >>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
> >>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
> >>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
> >>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles - which seem the main burden of the submission....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was a discussion of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles. At
> >>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
> >>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
> >>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
> >>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
> >>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
> >>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
> >>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
> >>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
> >>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
> >>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
> >>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
> >>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
> >>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
> >>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
> >>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
> >>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
> >>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
> >>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
> >>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
> >>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
> >>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
> >>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy' not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
> >>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
> >>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
> >>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
> >>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
> >>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
> >>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
> >>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
> >>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
> >>>>>>>>>> order.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
> >>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
> >>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
> >>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
> >>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
> >>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
> >>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
> >>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
> >>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
> >>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
> >>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
> >>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
> >>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
> >>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
> >>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
> >>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
> >>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
> >>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
> >>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
> >>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
> >>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
> >>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
> >>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
> >>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
> >>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
> >>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
> >>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
> >>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
> >>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org |awk -F!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
> >>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
> >>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
> >>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> 
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> 
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/a3dd0957/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Mar 10 11:18:57 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:18:57 -0300
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>

I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.

Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
risk and will.

Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
can demand consumer and other rights.

I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.

IMHO

--c.a.

On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
> 
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
> the country.
> 
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
> nearly $5 billion.
> 
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
> users and good for competition.”
> 
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
> 
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
> 
> source -
> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html

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

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Mar 10 11:49:45 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:49:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Guru,

On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.


Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention? 

Best,

Adam


> The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
> 
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country. 
> 
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
> 
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.” 
> 
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. 
> 
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
> 
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Mon Mar 10 12:56:01 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:56:01 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>,<C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Adam and Carlos there is a confounding of the issue in terms of Guru asking for the proprietary algorithm to be public. Google tweaks that almost daily it is my understanding, so even if yesterday's agorithm was public, it wouldn't do much good - today. It would make it much harder for Google to do business, and would lead to the algorithm-gaming behavior of other firms that Adam predicts.

On the other hand, regulatory review of possible bias/self-dealing in search results and their impact on competition in a market is fair game, even if the US FTC said 'play on' in its own review.

In that sense, the India competition policy review of Google is a relatively routine analysis of a firm in dominant positions in multiple markets.

For example, re the ongoing EU inquiries on Google's practices, and possible remedies, see:
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/google-remains-eu-scrutiny-news-533755 

Lee
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु
Cc: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

Hi Guru,

On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.


Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?

Best,

Adam


> The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>
> regards,
> Guru
>
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.
>
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.”
>
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 14:19:45 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:49:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>

Grande CA,

With due respect, the argument that 'you need not use Google search' is 
quite impractical/rhetorical. Search is essential to meaning making and 
in today's digital society, let us not delude ourselves that we can do 
without Google search. Google search is a monopoly  (conventional 
meaning - dominant market share) for very good reasons, of which its 
algorithms perceived superiority is an important one, but also its HUGE 
economic power invested in numerous data centres that help crawl/store 
and crunch the indexed information fast enough to make the engine 
formidable.

You find my argument difficult to accept,  because you have perhaps 
already imagined that the only way search can work is in its current 
form -where it is offered in a secretive manner by a for profit entity 
-  where you_can_not_be_sure that the commercial interests of the search 
engine would affect your actual agency in searching. Sorry, did I said 
you cannot be sure,   I should have said - YOU_CAN_BE_SURE that google's 
commercial interests would make it fiddle with the search algorithms in 
ways that would maximise its profit (Read Eli Pariser on how Google 
search engine is manipulating search for maximising its profits ...and 
in this process could be giving the world a global lobotomy, article 
attached! So whose to care? so long as we all click on the EULAs, all is 
well?)

Whether these manipulations by Google, would be within current legal 
limits or could cross these limits is what for instance Indian CCI is 
investigating. We have NO_IDEA.

_Another world is possible_
We could imagine search otherwise as well ... as a huge public digital 
library, where neither information nor its search need to be 
proprietary. In my view, I CANNOT see any other way to prevent 
manipulation of algorithms by the vendor for maximising their 
profits.Whether this manipulation is legal or not can only be detected 
by knowing the algorithm :-) ,

The  "JustNetCoalition's" principles and roadmap can be something we can 
take forward for building a just and equitable net. See principle 8 of 
the JNC principles on this issue (also attached) and share your thoughts...

warm regards,
Guru

On 03/10/2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
>
> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> risk and will.
>
> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> can demand consumer and other rights.
>
> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>
> IMHO
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>> the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>> nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>> users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source -
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/4dcb0396/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4. The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 227104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/4dcb0396/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 75403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/4dcb0396/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 14:20:04 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:50:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>

On 03/10/2014 09:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi Guru,
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.
> Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?
Good point, Adam.

If the algorithm is public, then it has a high probability of being 
gamed. But is it not already the case that people/entities try to game 
the search, based on their rough understanding of how search is working?
So I would argue that we would need to research ways by which gaming 
could be identified and that knowledge should also be available and used 
as a part of the search processes. I understand this is pretty much a 
cat and mouse game between attempts at gaming and attempt at unearthing 
gaming... but such games are already common in the development of virus 
and anti-virus algorithms/ spam and anti-spam algorithms  ....

So I would argue that more transparency, not less on both counts.

Would you agree that google's search algorithm being proprietary, we 
have NO idea if google is using it to capture information every time we 
invoke it, and using it for its commercial (legal as well as illegal) 
purposes (and also for purposes beyond its immediate commercial goals, 
such as the political goals of the US Government, in whose jurisdiction, 
it falls, as Snowden revealed). While this possibility of manipulation 
is true for any proprietary software, the search algorithm is perhaps 
the worlds-most_popular_on-line_proprietary_algorithm which makes the 
danger of being manipulated for the political-economic gains of certain 
entities far far higher... something that should scare everyone else.

Any advocates working on privacy / surveillance issues should strongly 
support my proposal to have Google make and keep its algorithms public. 
And of course so should anyone working towards open ICTD (open source, 
open resources) paradigms.... And of course anyone who believes in the 
WSIS 2003 Declaration of Principles, of .. "... our common desire and 
commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented 
Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and 
share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and 
peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable 
development and improving their quality of life..." this is not possible 
if we are suffering from global lobotomy (see Eli Pariser article in the 
response to CA).

regards,
Guru
> Best,
>
> 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 14:36:03 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:06:03 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>,<C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp> <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net>

On 03/10/2014 10:26 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> I agree with Adam and Carlos there is a confounding of the issue in terms of Guru asking for the proprietary algorithm to be public. Google tweaks that almost daily it is my understanding, so even if yesterday's agorithm was public, it wouldn't do much good - today.
Lee
So is there any technological impossibility in sharing this daily/ as 
and when a change is done? Don't see a point here.
>   It would make it much harder for Google to do business,

I know, Google is finding it so hard to do business today, we don't want 
to make it any harder, do we ;-) ....   certainly not with any 
regulation that would address critical issues I mentioned in my initial 
mail on this thread!

>   and would lead to the algorithm-gaming behavior of other firms that Adam predicts.
>
> On the other hand, regulatory review of possible bias/self-dealing in search results and their impact on competition in a market is fair game, even if the US FTC said 'play on' in its own review.
>
> In that sense, the India competition policy review of Google is a relatively routine analysis of a firm in dominant positions in multiple markets.

not really Lee .... *This can be tectonic .*... The policy review should 
need the regulator to review the search algorithm, whose secret nature 
is a big part of Google's power. See, this investigation is not about 
some simple manipulation of markets by some explicit/physical methods as 
may usually be the case. We are discussing the search algorithm which is 
ordering the world's knowledge / information for each of us.  "Code is 
law",  Lessig said; this review process by CCI  logically should wrench 
the control of the search algorithm from a private entity enforcing 
'law' for its own profit maximisation (and God/Snowden know for what 
else), to a public good process/approach.

Technically, CCI should require Google to share its algorithm with it or 
a relevant/competent authority that can assure us that Google is not 
illegally manipulating the page views  ...*and also require Google to 
prior clear any change in algorithm with such an authority* ... while I 
admit that this is  unlikely to happen, however  I see my position as 
logical...

Guru

> For example, re the ongoing EU inquiries on Google's practices, and possible remedies, see:
> http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/google-remains-eu-scrutiny-news-533755
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु
> Cc: Best Bits
> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
>
> Hi Guru,
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.
>
> Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>> The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>>
>> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/c1b90dff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 15:03:04 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:33:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp> <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E0C68.6080102@ITforChange.net>

On 03/10/2014 11:50 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 09:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
> Would you agree that google's search algorithm being proprietary, we 
> have NO idea if google is using it to capture information every time 
> we invoke it, and using it for its commercial (legal as well as 
> illegal) purposes (and also for purposes beyond its immediate 
> commercial goals, such as the political goals of the US Government, in 
> whose jurisdiction, it falls, as Snowden revealed). While this 
> possibility of manipulation is true for any proprietary software, the 
> search algorithm is perhaps the 
> worlds-most_popular_on-line_proprietary_algorithm which makes the 
> danger of being manipulated for the political-economic gains of 
> certain entities far far higher... something that should scare 
> everyone else.
>

the fear is not just a theoretical one.....
see 
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/19/google-pay-17-million-apple-tracking 
where Google was found guilty of using its search for illegal activities,
The article says that the "huge fine of $17m " would take Google 
slightly more than three hours to generate in revenue on an average 
day..... (Lee, we are very tough on Google aren't we :-) )

Guru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/8154e848/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Mar 10 15:05:33 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:33 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>,<C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
 <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Guru,

You are arguing that the Google search algorithm is a public good and must be regulated as  such.

I am saying Google is just another - firm in a dominant position whose secret sauce is a closely guarded trade secret. Unlike Coke's secret formula, Google's changes often; but it is still a trade secret if that's the way the business operates.

So yes my view is that in spite of all appearances of present invincibility, odds are Google is just another firm with dominant products in markets, at a particular point in time.

Which usual government regulatory proceedings can handle without resorting to a global regulatory takings process whose likelihood of success is somewhere around highly unlikely; is all I am saying. It would be a good topic for IGF.

The concept of 'search neutrality' never got much traction, but it is definitely legitimate for the Indian, and European, and US regulators to consider the market impact of Google search results and address them if there is evidence of abuse of a dominant position.

Which, cough cough, well let's wait til the dust/smoke settles, but certainly smells like Google has grown up to the point it may safely be forecast that they will be operating under various competition policy regulatory reviews for years to come.

Congrats? ; )

Lee


________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 2:36 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

On 03/10/2014 10:26 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

I agree with Adam and Carlos there is a confounding of the issue in terms of Guru asking for the proprietary algorithm to be public. Google tweaks that almost daily it is my understanding, so even if yesterday's agorithm was public, it wouldn't do much good - today.

Lee
So is there any technological impossibility in sharing this daily/ as and when a change is done? Don't see a point here.

 It would make it much harder for Google to do business,

I know, Google is finding it so hard to do business today, we don't want to make it any harder, do we  ;-) ....   certainly not with any regulation that would address critical issues I mentioned in my initial mail on this thread!


 and would lead to the algorithm-gaming behavior of other firms that Adam predicts.

On the other hand, regulatory review of possible bias/self-dealing in search results and their impact on competition in a market is fair game, even if the US FTC said 'play on' in its own review.

In that sense, the India competition policy review of Google is a relatively routine analysis of a firm in dominant positions in multiple markets.


not really Lee .... This can be tectonic .... The policy review should need the regulator to review the search algorithm, whose secret nature is a big part of Google's power. See, this investigation is not about some simple manipulation of markets by some explicit/physical methods as may usually be the case. We are discussing the search algorithm which is ordering the world's knowledge / information for each of us.  "Code is law",  Lessig said; this review process by CCI  logically should wrench the control of the search algorithm from a private entity enforcing 'law' for its own profit maximisation (and God/Snowden know for what else), to a public good process/approach.

Technically, CCI should require Google to share its algorithm with it or a relevant/competent authority that can assure us that Google is not illegally manipulating the page views  ...and also require Google to prior clear any change in algorithm with such an authority ... while I admit that this is  unlikely to happen, however  I see my position as logical...

Guru


For example, re the ongoing EU inquiries on Google's practices, and possible remedies, see:
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/google-remains-eu-scrutiny-news-533755

Lee
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp><mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु
Cc: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

Hi Guru,

On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:



Dear all,

Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.



Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?

Best,

Adam




The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.

regards,
Guru

Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014

 Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.

Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.

When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.”

A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.

“That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.

source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/c44f52f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 15:11:32 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:11:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca> <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjffGxzJhjYacfJeZGD3oO+hB+w-nUPgni=VuZW1OBxhQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Grande CA,
>
> With due respect, the argument that 'you need not use Google search' is
> quite impractical/rhetorical.
>



no, it is not.  I've used duckduckgo/yahoo and bing all day today to prove
the point that it can be done.


Search is essential to meaning making and in today's digital society, let
> us not delude ourselves that we can do without Google search.
>


sure we can.  Why don't you try it and see for yourself!



> Google search is a monopoly  (conventional meaning - dominant market
> share) for very good reasons, of which its algorithms perceived superiority
> is an important one, but also its HUGE economic power invested in numerous
> data centres that help crawl/store and crunch the indexed information fast
> enough to make the engine formidable.
>
> You find my argument difficult to accept,  because you have perhaps
> already imagined that the only way search can work is in its current form
> -where it is offered in a secretive manner by a for profit entity -  where
> you_can_not_be_sure that the commercial interests of the search engine
> would affect your actual agency in searching.
>


There are many other ways search can work.




> Sorry, did I said you cannot be sure,   I should have said -
> YOU_CAN_BE_SURE that google's commercial interests would make it fiddle
> with the search algorithms in ways that would maximise its profit (Read Eli
> Pariser on how Google search engine is manipulating search for maximising
> its profits ...and in this process could be giving the world a global
> lobotomy, article attached! So whose to care? so long as we all click on
> the EULAs, all is well?)
>
> Whether these manipulations by Google, would be within current legal
> limits or could cross these limits is what for instance Indian CCI is
> investigating. We have NO_IDEA.
>
> *Another world is possible*
> We could imagine search otherwise as well ... as a huge public digital
> library, where neither information nor its search need to be proprietary.
>


The beauty of the Internet is that you don't need permission to go ahead
and build this yourself.




> In my view, I CANNOT see any other way to prevent manipulation of
> algorithms by the vendor for maximising their profits.Whether this
> manipulation is legal or not can only be detected by knowing the algorithm :-)
> ,
>
>

Even a non-profit would manipulate their algorithm according to someone who
didn't rank highly in their search.



>  The  "JustNetCoalition's" principles and roadmap can be something we can
> take forward for building a just and equitable net. See principle 8 of the
> JNC principles on this issue (also attached) and share your thoughts...
>
>

I think that if I build a better mousetrap I shouldn't have to make the
design public so my competitor can try and beat me with my own design!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/749077c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 10 15:16:39 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:16:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531E0F97.4000804@cis-india.org>

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2014-03-08 2:03:38]:
> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
> education policy making, and so on...

Yes, I would support pharmaceutical companies actually being part of the 
health policy drafting process, just as I support publishers — the very 
publishers I've been fighting against in the parallel importation battle 
going on in India right now — having a role in policymaking around 
copyright.  It would be undemocratic, to say the least, to not have them 
at the table.

(That is not to say that I believe Wolfgang is right in the 
problem-solving abilities of multi-stakeholder decision-making processes 
by relying on IETF as the example.)

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/0f5b68f7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 10 15:21:41 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:21:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <173001cf3ae5$cb6724d0$62356e70$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <144a22ab600.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <173001cf3ae5$cb6724d0$62356e70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <531E10C5.6040207@cis-india.org>

Dear Michael,
I would equally like a clear statement from you as to how transnational 
"democracy" should work for Internet-related policy making.  How would 
these "democratic" decisions be enforced?

And, if Amazon is to pay taxes, they should not get a voice in the tax 
debate?  Should only those who do not pay taxes have a voice in the tax 
debate?  How is that democratic?

Regards,
Pranesh

michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> [2014-03-08 10:48:03]:
> Maybe I'm wrong and I would be delighted to see one of the MSists actually
> come out with a clear articulation of what they mean by MSism or a MS
> process but my understanding is that MSism is where the various
> "stakeholders" i.e. the private sector among others have a direct role in
> deciding (i.e. have direct inputs into consensus outputs) concerning issues
> of public policy significance arising out of Internet developments.
>
> What that means to me is that for example, Amazon gets to have a direct
> input into establishing global taxation policy related to the Internet,
> Google as a "stakeholder" is directly involved in establishing global policy
> concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Facebook as a matter of stakeholder
> "rights" helps determine global standards and regulation concerning privacy
> and so on and so on. Perhaps one of the guru's of MSism--Wolfgang, Bertrand,
> Jeanette--might explain exactly where I've misunderstood.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; bestbits; michael
> gurstein
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an
> opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at
> it.
>
> I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.
>
>
>
> On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
>> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
>> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests,
>> not only legal but compulsory?
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette
>> Hofmann
>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
>> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>> multistakeholder
>> policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma
>> companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making -
>> health and drug policies, and big publishers in education policy making,
> and so on...
>>
>>
>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
>> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not
>> done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes,
>> particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation.
>> Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process
>> and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what
> has been going on in secret.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
> 'difference'?
>>>
>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet
>>> may be
>> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
>> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
>> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>> embracing
>> here.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public
> administration.
>>>>
>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>> subject
>> to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>> representatives .
>>>>
>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>> manner
>> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international
>> treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements,
>> the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex
>> interplay with national political systems. But this system of global
>> public policies still
>> works.)
>>>>
>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>
>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>> definitions
>> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big
>> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
>> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
>> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is happening
> now.
>>>>
>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
>> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the
> global level.
>> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level.
>> Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this
>> models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>
>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into
>>>> a
>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite
>>>>> formal,
>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>> public
>> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go
>> beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without
>> public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>> models
>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil
>>>>>> society
>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov
>> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as
>> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>> making,
>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
> statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>> Joy
>> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on
>> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
> withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter
>>>>>>> the
>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>      the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>      society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>      should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>      internet governance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes
>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been
>> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>> documents
>> and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet
>> governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial,
>> including human rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing
>>>>>>> the
>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other
>>>>>>> when
>> doing so; and
>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>> therefore
>> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
>> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public
>>>>>>> policy
>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing
>>>>>>> or
>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>> which
>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter
>>>>>>>> and the
>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic,
>>>>>>>> with the
>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
>> international organisations. No single government should have a
>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>> dictionary
>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>> defines
>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments,
>> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No
>> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
>> international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>> term
>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
>> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no
>> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement
>> of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect
>> to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>> decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from what
>> is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as
>> gov
>> reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it
>> was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder
> roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov
>> actors....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>> this
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>> multilateral
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does
>> not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle
> inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term either
>> does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary
>> fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic'
>>>>>>>>> in
>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did
>>>>>>>>> the
>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group....
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from
> this doc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy
>>>>>>>>> not to
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end
>> of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a
>> pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>> equitable
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>> see
>> how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime
>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into
>> the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>> got
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt
> it...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate
>> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical
>> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to
>> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and
>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to
>> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression,
>> access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a
> knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>> advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/1e1cfc32/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 15:23:33 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:53:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>,<C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp> <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net> <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <531E1135.6050703@ITforChange.net>

Guru,
>
> You are arguing that the Google search algorithm is a public good and 
> must be regulated as  such.
>
> I am saying Google is just another - firm in a dominant position whose 
> secret sauce is a closely guarded trade secret. Unlike Coke's secret 
> formula, Google's changes often; but it is still a trade secret if 
> that's the way the business operates.
>
Lee

No comparison between coke's formula and google's search algorithm
Code is law and architecture is policy...
Please read 
http://www.stanford.edu/class/msande91si/www-spr04/readings/week3/Lessig-pcforum.pdf 
or http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html

Guru
> So yes my view is that in spite of all appearances of present 
> invincibility, odds are Google is just another firm with dominant 
> products in markets, at a particular point in time.
>
> Which usual government regulatory proceedings can handle without 
> resorting to a global regulatory takings process whose likelihood of 
> success is somewhere around highly unlikely; is all I am saying. It 
> would be a good topic for IGF.
>
> The concept of 'search neutrality' never got much traction, but it is 
> definitely legitimate for the Indian, and European, and US regulators 
> to consider the market impact of Google search results and address 
> them if there is evidence of abuse of a dominant position.
>
> Which, cough cough, well let's wait til the dust/smoke settles, but 
> certainly smells like Google has grown up to the point it may safely 
> be forecast that they will be operating under various competition 
> policy regulatory reviews for years to come.
>
> Congrats? ; )
>
> Lee
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/6d0294d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 10 15:34:07 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:34:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <531E13AF.4080808@cis-india.org>

Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-03-08 6:44:03]:
>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>> education policy making, and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done
> without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on
> the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder
> offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this
> process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been
> going on in secret.

I don't see how "multistakeholder" models offer that chance rather than 
having a transparent process of legislating, including having 
green/white papers, public consultations, making the responses to the 
consultations public, requiring statements of interests from bureaucrats 
and legislators, having watchdog bodies, having research staff, having 
an ombudsman body for receiving complaints about corruption, etc.  One 
can have all of this without "multistakeholder decision-making processes".

Of course, if we're equating a open and consultative process with 
"multistakeholder" model, then we're in opposition; we would have a 
disagreement about vocabulary, though.  At the end of the day, 
businesses are accountable to shareholders alone and academics are 
accountable to their institutions alone, while democratic governments 
are, at least in theory and often in practice, accountable to the voting 
public.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/59968097/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 15:35:26 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:35:26 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E1135.6050703@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
 <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net>
 <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <531E1135.6050703@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiC91uvOfLYNDxKaEMT4TOJd-r1y_7U3HQ7t9emT6RYFA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Guru,
>
>
>  You are arguing that the Google search algorithm is a public good and
> must be regulated as  such.
>
>  I am saying Google is just another - firm in a dominant position whose
> secret sauce is a closely guarded trade secret. Unlike Coke's secret
> formula, Google's changes often; but it is still a trade secret if that's
> the way the business operates.
>
>   Lee
>
> No comparison between coke's formula and google's search algorithm
> Code is law and architecture is policy...
>


argumentum ad absurdum:  it then follows that ALL code must be made public.


n'est–ce pas?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/6f72b829/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 10 16:03:12 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:33:12 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E1135.6050703@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp> <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net> <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <531E1135.6050703@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <AFDD63B6-AA39-4705-AAC2-0561EDAEECCE@hserus.net>

If you seriously believe Lessig's idealistic buzzwords in an entirely different context are somehow relevant to this discussion, or to the premises of that just net coalition you have been stitching together, I am not quite persuaded of the utility of your bringing your text to netmundial at all.  Still, it is a free country and a multistakeholder process .. anything goes.

--srs (iPad)

> On 11-Mar-2014, at 0:53, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
> Guru,
>> 
>> 
>> You are arguing that the Google search algorithm is a public good and must be regulated as  such.
>> 
>> I am saying Google is just another - firm in a dominant position whose secret sauce is a closely guarded trade secret. Unlike Coke's secret formula, Google's changes often; but it is still a trade secret if that's the way the business operates. 
> Lee
> 
> No comparison between coke's formula and google's search algorithm
> Code is law and architecture is policy...  
> Please read http://www.stanford.edu/class/msande91si/www-spr04/readings/week3/Lessig-pcforum.pdf or http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html
> 
> Guru
>> So yes my view is that in spite of all appearances of present invincibility, odds are Google is just another firm with dominant products in markets, at a particular point in time. 
>> 
>> Which usual government regulatory proceedings can handle without resorting to a global regulatory takings process whose likelihood of success is somewhere around highly unlikely; is all I am saying. It would be a good topic for IGF.
>> 
>> The concept of 'search neutrality' never got much traction, but it is definitely legitimate for the Indian, and European, and US regulators to consider the market impact of Google search results and address them if there is evidence of abuse of a dominant position. 
>> 
>> Which, cough cough, well let's wait til the dust/smoke settles, but certainly smells like Google has grown up to the point it may safely be forecast that they will be operating under various competition policy regulatory reviews for years to come. 
>> 
>> Congrats? ; )
>> 
>> Lee 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/05326a51/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From sana.pryhod at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 18:10:01 2014
From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:10:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Benedek,

Thank you very much for your letter. It was extremely important for me to
participate in your conference, but, unfortunately, just now Ukraine is in
position of informational war, and on the brink of physical war. I have to
be here (in Ukraine) now.

I am very happy that my Ukrainian colleague - Andrii Paziuk - is invited to
your conference. But I do not see him in the program of the conference.

I do not see also any other participants from Ukraine in your program. Are
you going to discuss any Digital Future for Europe without (at least)
taking into consideration latest events in Ukraine? It's not about Ukraine
in EU. It's about situation in Europe after latest events in Ukraine.

I would be very happy to receive your personal feedback asap,

Best regards from Ukraine,
Oksana Prykhodko,
director of iNGO European Media Platform






On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-
graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

> Dear all,
> may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the
> Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by
> the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together
> with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and
> Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.
>
> See program under:
> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf
>
> Please, register under:
> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp
>
> We would be happy to see many of You here!
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
> Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
> European Training and Research Centre
> on Human Rights and Democracy
> of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
> Elisabethstrasse 50B
> A-8010 Graz, Austria
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/bc49699d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Mon Mar 10 21:11:09 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:11:09 +0900
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjqB4sXFAAaes_MDmO+-sutX4MGyuu3G9f8Dy8Zjm9zQw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Oksana,

Thank you for reminding us about the situation there in Ukraine.
It is not only about the Digital Future for Europe, but also for us all
on the globe.

Not knowing exactly what to do from the Far East, but Russia
is also our neighbor, and our government is taking a rather
soft position to Russia since we have already enough diplomatic
problems with both Chinese and Korean governments (not necessarily
with people), and having the negotiation/ dispute over  the four islands
with Mr. Putin, I just like to send my message of support to you.

izumi





2014-03-11 7:10 GMT+09:00 Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod at gmail.com>:

> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>
> Thank you very much for your letter. It was extremely important for me to
> participate in your conference, but, unfortunately, just now Ukraine is in
> position of informational war, and on the brink of physical war. I have to
> be here (in Ukraine) now.
>
> I am very happy that my Ukrainian colleague - Andrii Paziuk - is invited
> to your conference. But I do not see him in the program of the conference.
>
> I do not see also any other participants from Ukraine in your program. Are
> you going to discuss any Digital Future for Europe without (at least)
> taking into consideration latest events in Ukraine? It's not about Ukraine
> in EU. It's about situation in Europe after latest events in Ukraine.
>
> I would be very happy to receive your personal feedback asap,
>
> Best regards from Ukraine,
> Oksana Prykhodko,
> director of iNGO European Media Platform
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-
> graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the
>> Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by
>> the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together
>> with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and
>> Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.
>>
>> See program under:
>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf
>>
>> Please, register under:
>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp
>>
>> We would be happy to see many of You here!
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>> Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
>> European Training and Research Centre
>> on Human Rights and Democracy
>> of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
>> Elisabethstrasse 50B
>> A-8010 Graz, Austria
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/24ffb06a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 23:11:56 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:11:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
	<531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
	<53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
	<5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
	<531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
	<53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
	<531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdhQ3A5UZt7hJ0Jbj4VdK=_PG+vF+i2ck38EN_YW4oyXw@mail.gmail.com>

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) is responsible for
overseeing and aiding Internet development in the country, as well as
the coordination and integration of all Internet services initiatives.
It was established by a Inter-ministerial (Ministry of Communication
and Ministry of Science, Technology and Inovation) Ordinance in 1995,
and later amended by a Presidential Decree in 2003. The CGI.br is
currently composed by 21 members:


-Nine representatives of the Federal Government:

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation - that also coordinates
the Committee;

Ministry of Communication;

Presidential Cabinet;

Ministry of Defense;

Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade;

Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management;

National Telecommunication Agency;

National Council for Scientific, and Technological Development ;

National Council of State Secretariats for Science Technology and
Information Issues


-Four representatives from the corporate sector

Internet access and content providers;

Telecommunication infrastructure providers;

Hardware, telecommunication and software industries;

Enterprises that use the Internet .


- Four representatives from the third sector (NGOs, civil society
non-profit organizations)

- Three representatives from the scientific and technological community

- One Internet Expert


The representatives are elected every 3 years by their own sectors, an
electoral college previously settled for this only purpose, and most
of the decisions are taken by consensus. The meetings occur monthly
and, depending on the subject being debated, the Committee passes
resolutions proposing policies, recommending standards and procedures,
establishing strategic directives . These recommendations haven't any
legal power, their aim is to inform the policies and legislation and
Internet governance stakeholders actions. CGI.br is thus a true
multistakeholder body. The federal government is well represented but
does not have a majority of voting member neither has influence over
the representatives election.

In order to perform its activities, the CGI.br created a non - profit
civil organization, the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br)
that, with the names registration surplus, provides a range of
services to the Brazilian Internet community as is illustrated:


registering and maintaining <.br> domain names, as well as allocating
Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) and IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the
country throug Registro.br;

handling and responding to computer security incidents involving
networks connected to the Brazilian Internet, which are activities to
be carried out by CERT.br;

projects that support and improve the network infrastructure in the
country, such as the direct interconnection between networks (PTT.br)
and the distribution of the Brazilian Official Time (NTP.br). These
projects are the responsibility of CEPTRO.br;

producing and publishing indicators, statistics and strategic
information on the development of the Brazilian Internet, under the
responsibility of CETIC.br;

promoting studies and recommending procedures, norms and technical and
operational standards that will improve network and Internet service
security, as well as ensure its increased and adequate use by society,
as established by the W3C.br;

providing technical and operational support to LACNIC, the Internet
Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean.


On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:32 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Friday 07 March 2014 03:40 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I think it is not so clear cut.
>
> We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have
> opportunities to make them more democratic.
>
> I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who
> is very active in CGI.br.
>
> I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use
> Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was primarily
> for policy shaping.
>
> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that
> can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can
> give examples.
>
> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is
> multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as
> well as make recommendations for public policies.
>
>
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public policy.
> Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we discussing here.
>
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical decisions,
> is also the difference between original public policy authority and
> delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that are rather well
> worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
>
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject to
> a higher authority (judicial review being a different matter) and is
> accompanied with legitimate coercive power for enforcement. Such power only
> lies with elected representatives in democracies. It cannot, for instance,
> be exercised by business representatives .
>
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner
> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties,
> and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of
> their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with
> national political systems. But this system of global public policies still
> works.)
>
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public policy
> function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business to
> exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on
> some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our
> social and political existence. This is what is happening now.
>
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in public
> policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big business
> can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The
> multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by
> Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level.
> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such
> efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is
> brought to the national levels.
>
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> contributing so strongly to...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but
> it is multi-stakeholder.
>
> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
> different parts of government is represented which his important. Business
> is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>
> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public
> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the
> traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public
> consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
>
> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to
> be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does
> not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and
> promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS
> space.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>
> Joy
>
> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>
> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov
> participants(which includes business) should be on the same footing as
> gov participants in terms of actually *making public **policies*
>
> *. *Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>
>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>
> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which
> arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or
> is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope
> such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.
>
>
>  On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>
> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full
> quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> role in relation to international internet governance.
>
> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are
> not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record
> in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one
> form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites
> a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles
> relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>
> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>
> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best
> Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant
> to internet governance
> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing
> so; and
> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they
> can of course be involved/consulted) .
>
> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is
> relevant to internet governance
> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity
> with each other when doing so;
>
> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is
> considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights
> (among others) are relevant to them.
>
>
> Joy
> Joy
> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use
> of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense
> as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We
> did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we
> understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private
> sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government
> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
> governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among
> governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly
> did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government
> should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other
> stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has
> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet
> governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable
> access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process."
> Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission
> to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  -
> which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>
> *Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder
> participation"* and whether it is different from what is meant in the
> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you
> seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please
> address this point specifically.
>
>
>  Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on
> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself:
> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity"
> and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is
> somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have
> about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>
>
>
> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean *parity* in *decision making*about *public
> policies *between gov and non gov actors....
>
>
>
> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS
> contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>
> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be
> multilateral and democratic. "
>
> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from
> the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>
> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as
> somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G
> 8 principles....
>
> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically
> speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure
> (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy
> (the other two docs)
>
> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society
> actors in IG space - come up with .....
>
> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics"
> you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity,
> accountability, and *equitable multistakeholder participation *"
> (emphasis added)
>
> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and
> was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is
> worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.
>
> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get
> caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the
> wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world,
> that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part
> of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful
> warriors of the neolib order.
>
> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what
> some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported
> status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial......
> All of piece.
>
> parminder
>
>
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on
> this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if
> we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too
> difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
> NetMundial
>
> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people,
> possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues
> and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic
> legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure
> that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation
> complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves,
> and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of
> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private
> sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet,
> and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials
> for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to
> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society,
> all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>      --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>  WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140310/3dba9009/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From antiropy at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 23:53:48 2014
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:53:48 +0900
Subject: [governance] Korean Civil Society Contribution to NETmnundial
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRw-QJD1S3huC8wCsqzLey+TJVuCnUbUsTkRkv2z2JHhYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello, all

Several Korean civil society organizations including Korean Progressive
Network Jinbonet, Open Net (Korea), CyberCommons (Korea), Citizens'
Coalition for Economic Justice, Network Neutrality User Forum, submitted
Korean civil society opinions to NETmundial.
I'd like to share it with you.
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/korean-civil-society-submission-for-netmundial/146

Best,
Byoungil Oh (Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet)

-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/07faef0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar 11 00:02:24 2014
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:02:24 +0900
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca> <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=dR3aMX__jvyhNA2Xv6sX0DqPNnTvQDS4QkycDviiMDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I think that you are missing something: Google is not leader everywhere .
Baidu in China, Yandex in Russia, Naver in South Korea (which also have
noew one othe biggest messaging app "LINE"), Yahoo Japan
it mens that is possible to have local search engine and even beat google,
in particular whenever that local competitor handles the non-latin script.
so why country like India having many IT companies dont have a local search
engine? I dont see what kind of anti-competition behavior from google
prevented from having an indian search engine leader (the article didn't
indicate any)?

there is temptation to use regulation to prevent a foreign company to get
market share and  instead foster national companies. I don't see how that
will benefit users and the irony is that it will basically benefit private
sector .

like others argued previously, there is choice to use other search engines.

Best,

Rafik



2014-03-11 3:19 GMT+09:00 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:

>  Grande CA,
>
> With due respect, the argument that 'you need not use Google search' is
> quite impractical/rhetorical. Search is essential to meaning making and in
> today's digital society, let us not delude ourselves that we can do without
> Google search. Google search is a monopoly  (conventional meaning -
> dominant market share) for very good reasons, of which its algorithms
> perceived superiority is an important one, but also its HUGE economic power
> invested in numerous data centres that help crawl/store and crunch the
> indexed information fast enough to make the engine formidable.
>
> You find my argument difficult to accept,  because you have perhaps
> already imagined that the only way search can work is in its current form
> -where it is offered in a secretive manner by a for profit entity -  where
> you_can_not_be_sure that the commercial interests of the search engine
> would affect your actual agency in searching. Sorry, did I said you cannot
> be sure,   I should have said - YOU_CAN_BE_SURE that google's commercial
> interests would make it fiddle with the search algorithms in ways that
> would maximise its profit (Read Eli Pariser on how Google search engine is
> manipulating search for maximising its profits ...and in this process could
> be giving the world a global lobotomy, article attached! So whose to care?
> so long as we all click on the EULAs, all is well?)
>
> Whether these manipulations by Google, would be within current legal
> limits or could cross these limits is what for instance Indian CCI is
> investigating. We have NO_IDEA.
>
> *Another world is possible*
> We could imagine search otherwise as well ... as a huge public digital
> library, where neither information nor its search need to be proprietary.
> In my view, I CANNOT see any other way to prevent manipulation of
> algorithms by the vendor for maximising their profits.Whether this
> manipulation is legal or not can only be detected by knowing the algorithm :-)
> ,
>
> The  "JustNetCoalition's" principles and roadmap can be something we can
> take forward for building a just and equitable net. See principle 8 of the
> JNC principles on this issue (also attached) and share your thoughts...
>
> warm regards,
> Guru
>
> On 03/10/2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
>
> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> risk and will.
>
> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> can demand consumer and other rights.
>
> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>
> IMHO
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>
> regards,
> Guru
>
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
> the country.
>
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
> nearly $5 billion.
>
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
> users and good for competition.”
>
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>
> source -http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/8a35054b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From sana.pryhod at gmail.com  Tue Mar 11 04:08:39 2014
From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:08:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjqB4sXFAAaes_MDmO+-sutX4MGyuu3G9f8Dy8Zjm9zQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+YNoKjqB4sXFAAaes_MDmO+-sutX4MGyuu3G9f8Dy8Zjm9zQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+C8XCLYWrLohOQxXthU5YNsdaboSLRtjqXRDwuQMO8cOic99A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

Thank you very-very much for all your support and understanding!

Best reards,
Oksana


On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear Oksana,
>
> Thank you for reminding us about the situation there in Ukraine.
> It is not only about the Digital Future for Europe, but also for us all
> on the globe.
>
> Not knowing exactly what to do from the Far East, but Russia
> is also our neighbor, and our government is taking a rather
> soft position to Russia since we have already enough diplomatic
> problems with both Chinese and Korean governments (not necessarily
> with people), and having the negotiation/ dispute over  the four islands
> with Mr. Putin, I just like to send my message of support to you.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-11 7:10 GMT+09:00 Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your letter. It was extremely important for me to
>> participate in your conference, but, unfortunately, just now Ukraine is in
>> position of informational war, and on the brink of physical war. I have to
>> be here (in Ukraine) now.
>>
>> I am very happy that my Ukrainian colleague - Andrii Paziuk - is invited
>> to your conference. But I do not see him in the program of the conference.
>>
>> I do not see also any other participants from Ukraine in your program.
>> Are you going to discuss any Digital Future for Europe without (at least)
>> taking into consideration latest events in Ukraine? It's not about Ukraine
>> in EU. It's about situation in Europe after latest events in Ukraine.
>>
>> I would be very happy to receive your personal feedback asap,
>>
>> Best regards from Ukraine,
>> Oksana Prykhodko,
>> director of iNGO European Media Platform
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek
>> @uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the
>>> Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by
>>> the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together
>>> with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and
>>> Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.
>>>
>>> See program under:
>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf
>>>
>>> Please, register under:
>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp
>>>
>>> We would be happy to see many of You here!
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>> Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
>>> European Training and Research Centre
>>> on Human Rights and Democracy
>>> of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
>>> Elisabethstrasse 50B
>>> A-8010 Graz, Austria
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/a5236926/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Tue Mar 11 04:28:49 2014
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:28:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF448606.57188%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear Oksana,

I'm happy to have Your colleague at this conference. And I'm following the events in Ukraine like many of my colleagues with fears and hopes that a sustainable solution can be found. As an international layer I'm shocked by the blatant violation of international legal rules. As You might know the Austrian Minister of  Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kurz, has just been in Kiev in his capacity as the chair of the CoE.

Regarding the agenda of the conference on "Shaping the digital environment – ensuring our rights on the Internet", it was determined by the Council of Europe together with the Austrian government, we in Graz are only the local co-organizers.

There will be a lifestream available, on which I will inform soon.

Kind regards

Wolfgang Benedek


Von: Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod at gmail.com<mailto:sana.pryhod at gmail.com>>
Datum: Montag, 10. März 2014 23:10
An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Universität Graz <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>
Betreff: Re: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14 March

Dear Mr. Benedek,

Thank you very much for your letter. It was extremely important for me to participate in your conference, but, unfortunately, just now Ukraine is in position of informational war, and on the brink of physical war. I have to be here (in Ukraine) now.

I am very happy that my Ukrainian colleague - Andrii Paziuk - is invited to your conference. But I do not see him in the program of the conference.

I do not see also any other participants from Ukraine in your program. Are you going to discuss any Digital Future for Europe without (at least) taking into consideration latest events in Ukraine? It's not about Ukraine in EU. It's about situation in Europe after latest events in Ukraine.

I would be very happy to receive your personal feedback asap,

Best regards from Ukraine,
Oksana Prykhodko,
director of iNGO European Media Platform






On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>> wrote:
Dear all,
may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.

See program under: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf

Please, register under: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp

We would be happy to see many of You here!

Wolfgang Benedek
Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
European Training and Research Centre
on Human Rights and Democracy
of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
Elisabethstrasse 50B
A-8010 Graz, Austria


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

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/0b8ff4bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Tue Mar 11 06:14:21 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:44:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Vodafone accused of secretly sharing data with British
 agency
Message-ID: <531EE1FD.4040607@ITforChange.net>

In the light of the large scale complicity of transnational IT 
corporates in colluding with their political masters (see today's news 
item from the same newspaper which reported the Google market 
malpractice probe yesterday),  how do we expect  any meaningful progress 
in global public policy making to protect and promote public interest in 
Internet Governance through the 'multi-stakeholderism' model, wherein 
these economic powerhouses can stall/stalemate any policy proposals that 
affect their economic interests / political interests of their masters?

I look forward to hear from those who think 'equal footing' for 
corporates in the public policy making processes is a good idea. For me 
the 8 years of the IGF is a clear proof that anything in the public 
interest that affects the political/economic interests of these groups 
can make little or no progress adopting a multi-stakeholder model... And 
such a stalemate has terrible costs for some others, over these 8 years, 
the net has become even much more a symbol of concentration of power...

imho, progress can come when people/institutions/networks believing in 
the idea of a public interest come together to resist these powerful 
forces. and I see these comprising to a good extent,  of many friends 
and sympathisers from the developed countries,working with developing 
country governments (many of who are practising democracies), academia 
and civil society institutions/networks...

regards,
Guru

Vodafone accused of secretly sharing data with British agency
New Delhi, Mar 10, 2014, (PTI)

Major telecom player Vodafone has been accused by the Union Home 
Ministry of secretly sharing subscriber data with a British intelligence 
and security organisation, a charge denied by the company.

According to documents of the Internal Security Division of the Home 
Ministry, Vodafone is alleged to have given the UK-based Government 
Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) "secret unlimited access to their 
network of under sea cables, which carry much of world's phone calls and 
Internet traffic". "GCHQ's mass tapping operations has been built up 
over the past five years by attaching intercept probes to the 
transatlantic cables where they land on British shores," the home 
ministry documents claimed. "Intercept partners are paid for logistical 
assistance," it said....

for more, read 
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/391064/voda-accused-secretly-sharing-data.html

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Mar 11 06:39:48 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 05:39:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] Vodafone accused of secretly sharing data with
 British agency
In-Reply-To: <531EE1FD.4040607@ITforChange.net>
References: <531EE1FD.4040607@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <20140311103948.GA11056@hserus.net>

Guru गुरु [11/03/14 15:44 +0530]:
>In the light of the large scale complicity of transnational IT 
>corporates in colluding with their political masters (see today's 
>news item from the same newspaper which reported the Google market 
>malpractice probe yesterday),  how do we expect  any meaningful 

The newspaper - even the home ministry - says "accused"

Whatever happened to due process or is it to be "guilty till proved
innocent"?

And how do I expect any meaningful progress in public policy when such 
vocal persons are engaged in poisoning the atmosphere with frequent
diatribes, justified or not, against one industry player or the other?

There's absolutely no point in multistakeholder engagement when
people and organizations have to watch their backs for friendly fire when
attempting to build consensus.

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

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Tue Mar 11 16:59:58 2014
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:59:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CF448606.57188%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <CA+C8XCJb8BDBrVvFGP3ftwTiyDdRTm2=YagVj4R3vxSZEz+BWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF448606.57188%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <CF45361C.573E2%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear all,
the conference "Shaping the digital environment - ensuring our rights on the Internet" starts on Thursday 13th at 9 a.m. and will end on Friday, 14th at 1 pm.
There will be a lifestream available at https://new.livestream.com/accounts/1803806/events/2833532.
The latest program and more details can be found at: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp
You are welcome to join us!
Wolfgang Benedek

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140311/5aa23be1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 12 16:32:17 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:32:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Ford Foundation seeks Global Internet Rights
 Program Officer
In-Reply-To:  <5F0EDE8CA544B54FBDD73694B3061CFB506070FD0C@FFNYC-60-170V.fordfound.org>
References:  <5F0EDE8CA544B54FBDD73694B3061CFB506070FD0C@FFNYC-60-170V.fordfound.org>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W446B1DAAD113C87E4FF01FB4760@phx.gbl>

Might be of interest to some of you.RgdsGrace

From: K.Duggins at fordfoundation.org
To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:56:15 -0400
Subject: Ford Foundation seeks Global Internet Rights Program Officer

Greetings:  I hope this note finds you well. I am writing to request your help in identifying candidates to serve as the Ford Foundation’s Program Officer focused on Global Internet Rights. In addition to your nominations, please share the attached position announcement widely with colleagues to help us identify a strong and diverse candidate pool. If there are any listservs, e-newsletters, LinkedIn groups or blogs that reach the audience we might be interested in, please share that information with me as well.  The foundation seeks a dynamic and enthusiastic individual to build on Ford’s rich legacy in and commitment to promoting universal access, open systems and clear protections for the public in the Internet environment. The Program Officer will manage a portfolio of grants and other activities to support a robust field of organizations doing work primarily in the Global South as part of the foundation’s Democracy, Rights and Justice Program. This is a new position in a newly created unit, and an amazing opportunity for the right candidate.  The current priorities of the work are to:  promote economic and social protections in the Internet environmentcreate ubiquitous, inexpensive and safe Internet accessbroaden the participation of marginalized groups through targeted strategies for digital inclusioncreate a competitive marketplace for innovation and accesspromote open and transparent technology systems advance fair and representative strategies for Internet governance Ideal candidates will be unafraid of technology, policy and coalition building; have a bachelor’s degree and at least 7 years’ professional experience working with media, technology and policy organizations internationally or within a global context; and substantial previous experience in and deep knowledge of Internet policy. Also required is excellent analytical, organizational and written and oral communication skills; demonstrated ability to conceptualize program ideas and develop innovative strategies; strong interpersonal skills and the ability to work with colleagues of diverse backgrounds and perspectives.  This position is based in our New York office. Fluency in English is required.   Please forward nominations to me by email at k.duggins at fordfoundation.org by March 31.   To apply, please visit http://www.fordfoundation.org/careers/jobs/415.  We greatly appreciate any consideration and assistance you can lend to this important search.  Sincerely,                 Kamilah Duggins                  Talent Acquisition Specialist                Human Resources                  320 East 43rd Street                 New York, NY 10017                 t: 212.573.5321                 k.duggins at fordfoundation.org                 www.fordfoundation.org       		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140312/c3720d7e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Job Description, PO Global Internet Rights.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43716 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140312/c3720d7e/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140312/c3720d7e/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org  Wed Mar 12 23:16:11 2014
From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:16:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] periodista informa que conatel pide bloquear acceso a
 youtube y twitter en venezuela - chau internetlibre?
Message-ID: <17EF0A08-EA28-4AD7-AA53-C98546AD4990@alfa-redi.org>


Hola a todos

la situacion en venezuela, tiene que ver mucho con la teoria de que se puede balcanizar el internet al tener que cumplirse las normas de manera local (que las leyes estan para cumplirse, de eso no hay duda), y que pasa cuando esas normas contravienen #ddhh o al menos conceptualizaciones generales como el internetlibre. A quien se tiene que hacer caso?

Este es el futuro de internet en America Latina?

Esto es el relato del periodista Alfredo Meza (@alfredomeza)

2h ago
@alfredomeza Esta mañana se celebró la reunión entre los proveedores de servicio de Internet y Conatel. Comentaré varios detalles de lo que allí se habló

2h ago
@alfredomeza Liquidada la independencia de la radio y la televisión el Gobierno instruyó a Conatel para que decida qué se puede o no consultar en la web

2h ago
@alfredomeza Hasta este momento Conatel ordenaba a proveedores de servicio (ISP) bloquear aquellas páginas que informaban la cotización del dólar negro

2h ago
@alfredomeza  ahora se ha puesto la meta de censurar todo aquel contenido noticioso que afecte la imagen del gobierno, pero tienen un problema

1h ago
@alfredomeza Conatel actualmente no controla si los proveedores de servicio cumplen las órdenes de bloquear páginas.

1h ago
@alfredomeza Conatel ha comunicado a los proveedores de servicio que desea automatizar el control sobre las órdenes de bloquear páginas web

1h ago
@alfredomeza ¿Qué significa automatizar el control?Conatel podrá revisar el sistema de los proveedores de servicio para verificar que cumplan lo ordenado

1h ago
@alfredomeza En la reunión con los proveedores servicio de Internet (ISP) Conatel habló de restringir el acceso a Youtube y Twitter, pero eso es difícil

1h ago
@alfredomeza Es complicado controlar Youtube y Twitter, explicaron las fuentes, por la forma como están configurados esos servicios. Pero gobierno quiere

1h ago
@alfredomeza Insisto: son planes que se ventilaron en reunión de hoy. Forma de implementarlos será motivo de reuniones pequeñas para evitar filtraciones

1h ago
@alfredomeza Empresas proveedoras de Internet están de manos atadas. Desobedecer al regulador implica que les revoquen habilitación. Y eso es un negocio


Erick Iriarte


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

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

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

From rishab.bailey at gmail.com  Thu Mar 13 06:16:04 2014
From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:46:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Society for Knowledge Commons contributions to
 NetMundial, 2014
Message-ID: <CANf7=M2Ofjn=C55a9jZze7CeKy2-G=KxX_B1kbFz1gk+tTPkZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The Society for Knowledge Commons (India and Brasil), in addition to
endorsing / signing on to the Just Net coalition documents (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-a-just-and-equitable-internet-for-all/110and
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164)
and a Brasilian civil society proposal (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/submission-on-internet-governance-principles-by-the-articulation-of-brazilian-civil-society-organizations/276),
has submitted two documents to the NetMundial conference:

(i) Towards Reform of Global Internet Governance (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-governance/240),
and
(ii) Towards Reform of Global Internet Technical Framework (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-technical-framework/270
).

The documents are also attached to this mail.

Regards,
Rishab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140313/c4f45e3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KC - Principles for IG and Roadmap.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37649 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140313/c4f45e3b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KC - Technical Roadmap.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140313/c4f45e3b/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Mar 13 14:05:38 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:05:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Updates: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The
 Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014
In-Reply-To: <ABDDBDE2-D54C-4056-9E11-5612BF6DF9D9@uzh.ch>
References: <ABDDBDE2-D54C-4056-9E11-5612BF6DF9D9@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <F4AABB7E-564C-4003-B8E2-4D41F10F6BF0@gmail.com>

Hi

> If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.

We are looking forward to the conference next Friday in Singapore.  I just wanted to pass along a few brief updates:

There have been several additions to the panelists since I sent out the notice below two weeks ago, with one more pending and soon to be resolved, http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/programme/

The program page above now has a link under each panel to  NETmundial and other contribution of relevance.  If one follows those links, you go to a page of background materials, some which are particularly relevant for the particular panels and could be drawn on in their respective conversations.

There are still some free seats in the large room ICANN reserved, so if you have any colleagues who will be coming early to Singapore and could be interested, please do direct them to the the conference page and registration page.

Best,

Bill

On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.
> 
> ------
> 
> "ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond"
> 
> A conference to be held on Friday 21 March 2014 at the ICANN 49 meeting venue, the Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore, in the Olivia Room, from 10:00 to 18:00.
> 
> Organized by the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, with the generous support of ICANN.
> 
> Logistical information, conference registration (important!) and the program are now online at http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/
> 
> We very much want this to be an inclusive cross-community dialogue, so we hope people will consider attending, either in person or remotely, and please do share this with potentially interested colleagues.  We are compiling some background materials related to the session topics for addition to the web site, and personal/organizational written inputs would be very much welcome.
> 
> 
> Overview of the meeting
> 
> 10:00-10:15     Welcome and Overview 
> 10:15-10:45     Update on the Sao Paulo Meeting
> 10:45-12:00     Panel 1 - Setting the Scene: Overview of Recent Agenda-Setting Initiatives
> 12:00-13:00     Lunch
> 13:00-14:15     Panel 2 - Internet Governance Principles
> 14:15-15:45     Panel 3 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Globalization
> 15:45-16:00     Coffee break
> 16:00-17:30     Panel 4 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Institutional Innovation
> 17:15-17:45     Keynote Assessment by Larry Strickling,
> 			Asst. Secretary of Commerce, Government of the United States
> 17:45-18:00     Concluding Observations
> 18:00-19:30     Reception with Fadi Chehadé, CEO of ICANN
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140313/ab52391b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar 14 08:36:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:06:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>

Dear Stephanie,

I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in 
policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken 
that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More 
on agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism 
later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental 
'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which cannot 
easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is most important. 
Last year, I wrote a blog 
<http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy> 
where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that 
are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...

However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for 
instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several 
others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for 
instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 
'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on 
your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of 
all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of 
specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.

Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed 
in this fashion not a threat to democracy?

Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is certain 
kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to save 
NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines 
<http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300>'.

I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the 
High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all 
stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations 
begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.

Regards

parminder


On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regulation making, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
> Stephanie Perrin
> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
>>
>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>
>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>
>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>> So who's able?
>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>
>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>
>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> All of this is really going insane.
>>
>> Michael is so right
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>
>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>
>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
>>>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/e010cda5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org  Fri Mar 14 10:32:02 2014
From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:32:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] ISOC Venezuela llama a la libertad de Internet -
 URGENTE
Message-ID: <38D2F5EE-4D65-497A-8A7F-B7855EE739DE@alfa-redi.org>

Disculpa: Mensaje a multiples listas en un solo mensaje. Mensaje que no es off topic a ninguna de las listas.

Nota Personal: 
Con este comunicado de ISOC Venezuela, ya son dos comunicados de Capitulos de ISOC
(ISOC Peru: Comunicado ISOC Peru sobre situacion de internet en venezuela #internetlibre #venezuelalibre #isoc  http://pic.twitter.com/DedTVk5UlR y el de ISOC Venezuela). Seguiran Callando todos aquellos involucrados en internet esperando que recien ocurra en sus paises

Fuente: https://www.facebook.com/ISOC.Venezuela/posts/10152037054548403

----

ISOC Venezuela llama a la libertad de Internet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1925311_687819271276278_1452526131_a.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/b1a6aba6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------

En Caracas, a los trece (13) días del mes de marzo de 2014.
 
La Sociedad Internet Venezuela (ISOC Venezuela), preocupada por las restricciones al Internet durante los últimos meses en Venezuela, hace un llamado a la libertad del Internet y al respeto y la promoción del derecho a la libertad de expresión a través de esta plataforma global de comunicación.
 
La Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) ha ordenado bloqueos sobre el sistema DNS afectando los nombres de dominio de algunos sitios web, entre los cuales destacan aquellos que informan sobre la cotización de divisas extranjeras. Estos bloqueos se han ordenado sin cumplimiento del previo proceso administrativo o judicial, con garantías de derecho a la defensa y debido proceso.
 
Asimismo, el Presidente de la República ordenó expresamente que se sacara de la grilla de programación de televisión por cable y de internet al canal de noticias colombiano NTN24. Esta medida se tomó de forma arbitraria y, nuevamente, sin el debido proceso ni garantías de derecho a la defensa.
 
Paralelamente, la Internet en Venezuela se ve seriamente afectada por deficiencias en la infraestructura de la red que la soporta, debido a falta de inversión y mantenimiento. Esto ocasiona que en algunos casos se generen colapsos en la red en sitios o servidores.
 
Un evento de interrupción total del servicio de Internet ocurrió en el Estado Táchira,  que de acuerdo al comunicado de la empresa responsable fue producto de problemas asociados con infraestructura y falta de energía eléctrica. El mencionado comunicado se produjo después de más de 72 horas de la ocurrida la suspensión, lo que generó mucha desconfianza entre los usuarios y clientes del servicio dada la coyuntura en que se produjo y la demora en restablecerlo.
 
Finalmente, han existido ataques por parte de hackers contra sitios web gubernamentales a través de denegaciones de servicio. Esto ocasiona un mayor colapso en el sistema ya deficiente de Internet.
 
La Libertad de Expresión es un Derecho Humano fundamental para la democracia. Este derecho está consagrado en numerosos instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos, entre los cuales destaca el artículo 19 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos de Naciones Unidas, y, de la misma forma está consagrado en los artículos 57 y 58 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
 
La Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de este derecho, y por ende instrumento de la democracia. La Internet nos permite acceder a información de interés, el libre ejercicio de la libertad de culto y de credo político.
 
El Estado venezolano tiene la obligación de respetar la libertad en Internet como un medio de comunicación y garantizar el acceso a Internet de calidad en el territorio nacional.
 
Cualquier forma de bloqueo u obstaculización por razones políticas o económicas; bajo premisas de seguridad nacional, sin un debido proceso fundamentado en el respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, es ajeno a la vida democrática de cualquier país.
 
En estos momentos, Venezuela atraviesa una situación de crisis política y social, y cuenta con pocos medios de comunicación independientes que transmitan información acerca de los hechos que suceden diariamente. Esto ha generado un mayor tráfico en Internet, el cual se ha visto obstaculizado por la deficiente infraestructura que soporta la Red y por la falta de neutralidad de la misma. Es importante que el Estado pueda garantizar un acceso a Internet de calidad a escala nacional.
 
En este sentido exhortamos al Estado venezolano a que:
 
1. Revierta las ordenes de bloqueos a los sitios web, hasta tanto exista un debido proceso, con suficientes garantías de autonomía, independencia e imparcialidad de los funcionarios o jueces que tomen las decisiones sobre ello.
2. Garantice neutralidad en la red, y en este sentido se abstenga de tomar acciones que obstaculicen las visitas a determinados contenidos en el web o la rapidez del acceso a determinados contenido en internet.
3. Garantice que exista un acceso a Internet de calidad en toda Venezuela, promoviendo la diversidad y competencia de proveedores a lo largo y ancho de la Nación.
 
En Caracas, a los trece (13) días del mes de marzo de 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org  Fri Mar 14 10:34:22 2014
From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:34:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [alc-cmsi] ISOC Venezuela llama a la libertad de
 Internet - URGENTE
References: <38D2F5EE-4D65-497A-8A7F-B7855EE739DE@alfa-redi.org>
Message-ID: <6CF8431C-2BC2-4310-B318-CB041CBA6144@alfa-redi.org>

FYI

Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

> De: Erick Iriarte Ahon <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org>
> Fecha: 14 de marzo de 2014 09:32:02 GMT-05:00
> Para: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN <latinoamericann at dgroups.org>, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Caucus de la Informacion de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad <alc-cmsi at gn.apc.org>
> Cc: Latin Network Operators Group America and Caribbean Region <lacnog at lacnic.net>, "Peru para un Peru Digital Digital: Espacio de Dialogo" <peru-digital at dgroups.org>, LACRALO Español <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Foro de Derecho Informático." <derecho-informatico at dgroups.org>, Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC <politicas at lacnic.net>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Asunto: [alc-cmsi] ISOC Venezuela llama a la libertad de Internet - URGENTE
> Responder a: Caucus de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad de la Informacion <alc-cmsi at gn.apc.org>
> 
> Disculpa: Mensaje a multiples listas en un solo mensaje. Mensaje que no es off topic a ninguna de las listas.
> 
> Nota Personal: 
> Con este comunicado de ISOC Venezuela, ya son dos comunicados de Capitulos de ISOC
> (ISOC Peru: Comunicado ISOC Peru sobre situacion de internet en venezuela #internetlibre #venezuelalibre #isoc  http://pic.twitter.com/DedTVk5UlR y el de ISOC Venezuela). Seguiran Callando todos aquellos involucrados en internet esperando que recien ocurra en sus paises
> 
> Fuente: https://www.facebook.com/ISOC.Venezuela/posts/10152037054548403
> 
> ----
> 
> ISOC Venezuela llama a la libertad de Internet
> 
> En Caracas, a los trece (13) días del mes de marzo de 2014.
> 
> La Sociedad Internet Venezuela (ISOC Venezuela), preocupada por las restricciones al Internet durante los últimos meses en Venezuela, hace un llamado a la libertad del Internet y al respeto y la promoción del derecho a la libertad de expresión a través de esta plataforma global de comunicación.
> 
> La Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) ha ordenado bloqueos sobre el sistema DNS afectando los nombres de dominio de algunos sitios web, entre los cuales destacan aquellos que informan sobre la cotización de divisas extranjeras. Estos bloqueos se han ordenado sin cumplimiento del previo proceso administrativo o judicial, con garantías de derecho a la defensa y debido proceso.
> 
> Asimismo, el Presidente de la República ordenó expresamente que se sacara de la grilla de programación de televisión por cable y de internet al canal de noticias colombiano NTN24. Esta medida se tomó de forma arbitraria y, nuevamente, sin el debido proceso ni garantías de derecho a la defensa.
> 
> Paralelamente, la Internet en Venezuela se ve seriamente afectada por deficiencias en la infraestructura de la red que la soporta, debido a falta de inversión y mantenimiento. Esto ocasiona que en algunos casos se generen colapsos en la red en sitios o servidores.
> 
> Un evento de interrupción total del servicio de Internet ocurrió en el Estado Táchira,  que de acuerdo al comunicado de la empresa responsable fue producto de problemas asociados con infraestructura y falta de energía eléctrica. El mencionado comunicado se produjo después de más de 72 horas de la ocurrida la suspensión, lo que generó mucha desconfianza entre los usuarios y clientes del servicio dada la coyuntura en que se produjo y la demora en restablecerlo.
> 
> Finalmente, han existido ataques por parte de hackers contra sitios web gubernamentales a través de denegaciones de servicio. Esto ocasiona un mayor colapso en el sistema ya deficiente de Internet.
> 
> La Libertad de Expresión es un Derecho Humano fundamental para la democracia. Este derecho está consagrado en numerosos instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos, entre los cuales destaca el artículo 19 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos de Naciones Unidas, y, de la misma forma está consagrado en los artículos 57 y 58 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
> 
> La Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de este derecho, y por ende instrumento de la democracia. La Internet nos permite acceder a información de interés, el libre ejercicio de la libertad de culto y de credo político.
> 
> El Estado venezolano tiene la obligación de respetar la libertad en Internet como un medio de comunicación y garantizar el acceso a Internet de calidad en el territorio nacional.
> 
> Cualquier forma de bloqueo u obstaculización por razones políticas o económicas; bajo premisas de seguridad nacional, sin un debido proceso fundamentado en el respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, es ajeno a la vida democrática de cualquier país.
> 
> En estos momentos, Venezuela atraviesa una situación de crisis política y social, y cuenta con pocos medios de comunicación independientes que transmitan información acerca de los hechos que suceden diariamente. Esto ha generado un mayor tráfico en Internet, el cual se ha visto obstaculizado por la deficiente infraestructura que soporta la Red y por la falta de neutralidad de la misma. Es importante que el Estado pueda garantizar un acceso a Internet de calidad a escala nacional.
> 
> En este sentido exhortamos al Estado venezolano a que:
> 
> 1. Revierta las ordenes de bloqueos a los sitios web, hasta tanto exista un debido proceso, con suficientes garantías de autonomía, independencia e imparcialidad de los funcionarios o jueces que tomen las decisiones sobre ello.
> 2. Garantice neutralidad en la red, y en este sentido se abstenga de tomar acciones que obstaculicen las visitas a determinados contenidos en el web o la rapidez del acceso a determinados contenido en internet.
> 3. Garantice que exista un acceso a Internet de calidad en toda Venezuela, promoviendo la diversidad y competencia de proveedores a lo largo y ancho de la Nación.
> 
> En Caracas, a los trece (13) días del mes de marzo de 2014._______________________________________________
> La lista Alc-cmsi recoge información, opiniones y aportes de organizaciones y personas de sociedad civil en ALC interesadas en políticas de TIC. Solicitamos no replicar estos mensajes en otras listas y/o personas que no hagan parte de la misma, al menos que el remitente original lo exprese de manera directa
> _______________________________________________
> Info y opciones: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/alc-cmsi
> Cancelar suscripcion: enviar email a alc-cmsi-unsubscribe at gn.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/bd0f0da2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1925311_687819271276278_1452526131_a.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/bd0f0da2/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 14 11:46:21 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:46:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca>

Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs.    I am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no question it could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the Internet and the modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is exactly the kind of envigoration it needs.  This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder model has appeal for many of us.  I will read your materials and respond more thoughtfully, but I would point out one thing...managing a global entity in a multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away from the nation state.  The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious freedom, privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is already a challenge.  Some states are doing this more effectively than others....I would point to the EU, who have in some respects higher agricultural standards, more uniform data protection, and harmonized e-commerce regulations than we do in North America, in my humble opinion.  (this may start a storm of controversy on the list, please resist the temptation, I am just trying to point out efforts to continue to assert the power to regulate, not really trying to say the EU is better.)  The point about the Internet, is it is a key enabler in helping us get to whatever stage of global cooperation and human development we are capable, as deeply flawed humans, of achieving.
More later.
Stephanie
On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:

> Dear Stephanie,
> I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More on agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental 'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which cannot easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is most important. Last year, I wrote a blog where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...
> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.
> Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed in this fashion not a threat to democracy?
> Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines'.
> I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.
> Regards
> parminder
> 
> On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regu!
>>  lation mak
>> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
>>   stands to
>>  be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
>> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>> 
>>> Jeanette,
>>> 
>>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying, 
>>> 
>>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>> 
>>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>> 
>>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>>> So who's able?
>>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>> 
>>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>> 
>>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>> 
>>> Jeanette,
>>> 
>>> All of this is really going insane.
>>> 
>>> Michael is so right
>>> 
>>> JC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>> 
>>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>> 
>>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>> 
>>>> jeanette
>>>> 
>>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>> 
>>>>> M
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>>> 
>>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>> 
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>    internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
>>>>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/3526ff66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar 14 12:11:05 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:41:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>


On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.

Hi Carlos,

We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there 
is no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.

What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a 
public or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though 
provided privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of 
many considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public 
good as times change. Prior to the industrial revolution, education was 
considered a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very 
exclusive privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills 
transferred within occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial 
revolution, many changes took place in social structures, in structure 
of family, work force and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see 
as seen as a kind of public good, and then as  a human right in the UN 
Declaration of Human Rights...

Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a 
vis the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element 
of this transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms 
that mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a 
whole sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general 
social networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of 
natural monopolies - a fact that is proven. All this present a very new 
situation, and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public 
interest of the need and degree of regulation of such platforms. Also, 
whether some of these services also need to be provided as public goods, 
or at least proactive public support (including with funds)  given for 
building local and/ or non-profit alternatives. But the least that can 
certainly be said is that a completely unregulated commercial offering 
of these platforms, as huge global monopolies, and largely escaping 
regulation because of their global nature, coupled with extra-ordinary 
economic (and increasingly, political) might, is not not a sustainable 
situation. We can accept it now and take remedial measures, or do it 
after considerable social damage is done.

(In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even 
constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for 
them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a 
vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )

All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and 
unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have 
to visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show 
the political openness to do so.

Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer 
regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position 
is well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.

regards

parminder

>
> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> risk and will.
>
> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> can demand consumer and other rights.
>
> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>
> IMHO
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>> the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>> nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>> users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source -
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html


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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 14 12:25:03 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:55:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
 <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
 <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <144c1692b78.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

You seem to be calling for nationalization or maybe worldization of Google 
and similar

India's abortive experience with this has left us with a multitude of sick 
industries losing billions of rupees a year. I congratulate you on trying 
to perpetuate that same failed model here



On 14 March 2014 9:41:51 pm parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> > I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> > private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> > paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there is 
> no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.
>
> What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a public 
> or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though provided 
> privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of many 
> considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public good as 
> times change. Prior to the industrial revolution, education was considered 
> a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very exclusive 
> privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills transferred within 
> occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial revolution, many 
> changes took place in social structures, in structure of family, work force 
> and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see as seen as a kind of 
> public good, and then as  a human right in the UN Declaration of Human 
> Rights...
>
> Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a vis 
> the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element of this 
> transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms that 
> mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a whole 
> sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general social 
> networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of natural 
> monopolies - a fact that is proven. All this present a very new situation, 
> and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public interest of the need 
> and degree of regulation of such platforms. Also, whether some of these 
> services also need to be provided as public goods, or at least proactive 
> public support (including with funds)  given for building local and/ or 
> non-profit alternatives. But the least that can certainly be said is that a 
> completely unregulated commercial offering of these platforms, as huge 
> global monopolies, and largely escaping regulation because of their global 
> nature, coupled with extra-ordinary economic (and increasingly, political) 
> might, is not not a sustainable situation. We can accept it now and take 
> remedial measures, or do it after considerable social damage is done.
>
> (In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even 
> constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for 
> them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a 
> vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )
>
> All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and 
> unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have to 
> visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show the 
> political openness to do so.
>
> Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer 
> regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position is 
> well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.
>
> regards
>
> parminder
>
> >
> > Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> > for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> > of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> > risk and will.
> >
> > Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> > the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> > can demand consumer and other rights.
> >
> > I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> > can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> > a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> > if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
> >
> > IMHO
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
> >> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
> >> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
> >> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
> >> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
> >> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
> >> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
> >> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Guru
> >>
> >> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> >> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
> >>
> >>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
> >> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
> >> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
> >> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
> >> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
> >> the country.
> >>
> >> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
> >> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
> >> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
> >> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
> >> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
> >> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
> >> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
> >> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
> >> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
> >> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
> >> nearly $5 billion.
> >>
> >> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
> >> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
> >> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
> >> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
> >> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
> >> users and good for competition.”
> >>
> >> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
> >> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
> >> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
> >> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
> >> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
> >> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
> >>
> >> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
> >> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
> >> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
> >> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
> >> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
> >>
> >> source -
> >> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>
>



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

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Mar 14 15:03:26 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:03:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] EU Parliament Passes Call Against Surveillance And For
 Digital "New Deal"
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqBz43V6VwtsWgJOOzTEwH9ru57GjPYtQycCCgXK=Dgpg@mail.gmail.com>

By Monika Ermert <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/monika/> for Intellectual
Property Watch

A huge majority of the European Parliament today called for a stop to mass
surveillance and a digital "New Deal" to enpower European citizens and
companies following a six-month inquiry into the US National Security
Agency (NSA) and other intelligence service surveillance programmes by the
Parliamen's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Today's report calls on both US and EU member states to prohibit blanket
mass surveillance activities. Rapporteur Claude Moreas (Socialists and
Democrat, S&D) expressed his satisfaction in a press conference immediately
after the vote with *544 against 78 votes*.

http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/03/12/eu-parliament-passes-call-against-surveillance-and-for-digital-new-deal-ttip-can-proceed/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/f6005215/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Mar 14 16:43:55 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:43:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <144c1692b78.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
 <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>,<144c1692b78.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <eb2fe16487024d8591811b11d6e81372@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder, Suresh, friends,

My (too lengthy) comments on the cross-thread discussion of (democratic) multi-stakeholder processes; and alternatives in the present/next phase of (global) Internet governance are offered here.

My main point: all too often, we are leaving out of the discussion of global Internet public policy the contrast with the common practice - and most realistic alternative for detailed sector-specific regulation of global Internet public policy matters - which is industry self-regulation. 

The Milton/Brenden DNSA proposal could be seen as proposing to help the industry, and the world, by establishing a narrowly targetted process insulated from politics, and specifically removed from NTIA oversight.

That could be a sign that the global Internet is growing up and doesn't need baby-sitting as it once did. So to be clear I have nothing against industry self-regulation where it is an effective alternative, including in global Internet governance arenas.

I do not however wish to lose the default preference for truly multi-stakeholder processes wherever they might be established, since they are preferrable in principle.

So  yes 'Industry-led' ICANN could be seen as just another industry self-regulatory body. As direct democracy was tried and found wanting in the very early ICANN days for a global organization - cough Karl Auerbach as the fall guy starred in that show - it appears the best we can hope for is multistakeholder, including democratically elected governments. Since a  classic democratic form involving electoral representation of all us Internet users and creators on a global scale is not -yet? - realistically on the table. 

Therefore, I argue that we live in the best of all possible worlds from a multi-stakeholder Internet governance view, and civil society should only consent to outcomes in Brazil and beyond that further support that model as - the best of all possible alternatives - in the present day and age.

Seriously.  

What we want to ensure is that we multi-stakeholders do not lose the opportunity (to be fooled??) into helping keep the open global Internet up and operating. Since honestly the alternative is to leave it to industry, with government oversight,and the public just invited to leave comments and complaints. THEN the Internet stagnates and becomes just the global multinational tool many of us oppose.

Since the realistic alternative is not global Internet public policy made by (democratic) governments in ascendance as you might prefer, but unfettered Industry (self-) regulation which can expose us all to - probably - worse outcomes and certainly less opportunities for 90% of us on this list to have a say.  (Which is not to say the essentially industry self-regulatory/operating structure of DNSA is not preferrable to leaving NTIA in charge; but that is a discussion for another email.)

Now to the academic/historical justification for those statements:

The Internet "Corporation"  might be conceived of as just a variation on sector-specific regulatory/governance approaches dating back to the midieval guilds - think Hanseatic League - and even earlier times in other cultures.

Not that it was all bad; I understand the Hanseatic League's salt cod was the best. : )  

Essentially, multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes are just a variation on that age-old regulatory theme, with greater transparency and openness to civil society one of its key advantages. 

Multi-stakeholder is not an alternative to democracy, it is a participatory democracy/civil society AND government(s) AND industry self-regulatory toolkit to dupe lots of volunteers to spend countless hours doing - the public good. 

Amongst those volunteers, there are of course many whose day job employers have substantial financial interests in the matters being regulated.  Again, like any industry self-regulatory process, the fact that the folks in the room have various stakes in the game, is a feature, not a bug.

That we all can participate as stakeholders is also a feature and not a bug.  

Yes of course global Internet public policy generally speaking would be - better done in the present era if for example the ITU, or UNCSTD, could more readily shake the historical shackles of a 19th and 20th century treaty organizations.  But if it were easy to really open up the ITU it would have happened already, some of us have been working on it for 3 decades now.

So, if true global IGO's just can't handle, and can't motivate the fools I mean the many many thousands of volunteers which their structures automatically disrespect and treat like midieval serfs who should not be in the room and should certainly not speak if not spoken to - that just won't do to motivate the folks participating in all kinds of global Internet governance processes that keeps the net up and growing. 

Therefore, the present preference for multi-stakeholder processes ideally should be endorsed by everyone as the #1 main outcome of Brazil.

(Yeah some agreement on general principles and endorsement of the Internet Rights and Principles Charter as THE 'Magna' Carta' of our era would be nice; but most important really is an agreement on - processes -  so in that Fadi got it right in framing the meeting.)   

I elaborate (even further) below.

Industry self-regulatory practices continue in specific sectors; for example for obvious reasons - that's where the money/temptation to rip off customers and business partners is - regulating finance involves more regulators than just the 5 federal government regulators involved in oversight of the 'Volcker Rule' in the US. 

As an illustration, in the US financial industry, FINRA regulates broker-dealers. They follow certain best practices:

"Comments will be posted online for all Regulatory Notices that seek comment on a proposal. Posting comments online will make it easier for the public to access and review submissions, and will improve the efficiency with which FINRA maintains, reviews and makes available the comments it receives. Generally, comments will be posted on the FINRA website as they are received." (see: http://www.finra.org/AboutFINRA/) FINRA is authorized by the US Congress but is an industry-organized non-profit. Financial brokers in other nations may be similarly policed by their peers. Obviously, FINRA did not prevent the global finanical melt-down of 2008; but then neither did the US or other government regulatory bodies. And following that meltdown, the US Congress passed new legislation, but again that did not obviate the need for FINRA. FINRA is far from perfect, as brokers or their clients may tell you over drinks; but it more or less works.

Leaving to doctors, lawyers and universities the details of their professional (re-)accreditation is perhaps the most common of the industry/professional self-regulatory practices I am contrasting multi-stakeholder with. Of course there are procedures for patients to complain, and ripped-off investors, and parents and students, that is kind of the point. 

But because of the stakes - money and right to practice - none of these procedures are exactly welcoming to new participants offering to help.

For Internet governance, if you want to try to crack the inter-networking code(s), noone's stopping you - in fact IETF folks will welcome clever newbies/fools who they can off-load work to.

So if we recognize its origins in Internet governance out of IETF necessity and related activities which involved,also of necessity, multiple parties - a more-open, more-transparent  'we do not recognize kings just running code' world we are all now living in:
 
and note the DoC's Green Paper tagline of 'industry-led'; 

we can at least suggest to Parminder that there are far worse alternatives than endorsement of the multi-stakeholder model as the global default for Internet governance, as the number one outcome of Brazil.

In its next phase, multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes clearly have key roles to play, since there are just so many stakeholders, including interested individuals, who might have a better idea on how to do (new) things.

Since we have not been here before. 

Whether those newbies are dipping their intellectual toe into IETF on inter-networking standards; or to other parts of ICANN for other matters, or  to Milton and Brendren's new baby DNSA, it is clear that a lot of what we are talking about is too fast-moving/just wouldn't work if burdened with traditional intergovernmental oversight. 

Anyway, to be frank and realistic, for most of the Internet Governance processes we are talking about and especially those which have international impact, multi-stakeholder is a more inclusive, but also a more flexible and responsive, participatory, self-regulatory, model than FINRA.  

So in other words, and to finally be semi-succinct, if multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes are thought of as the variation on the age-old industry-self-regulatory theme which they are; personally I prefer multi-stakeholder as more inclusive of civil society and individual interests, whether yes the 'guild' of IPR lawyers/interests are also hanging around ICANN, as they have been doing since before its founding. At least we the people can get in the room whether physically or virtually as well, with a right to speak as equals.

Which is Avri's key point. 

And to now conclude, all that is orthoganal to market regulation of firms (cough the Google example) in dominant positions, for which I would not advocate self-regulation, or multi-stakeholder processes, but good old-fashioned governmental competition policy regulation of firms suspected of abusing dominant positions, as in the present government inquiries in India and the EU.   A future global markets authority may be a desirable thing but more plausible is the Indian regulators, and the Chinese, also taking their seats at the big boys table with US and EU authorities, and talking amongst themselves. But that is beyond the scope of what we can reach any level of consensus on in a month, so...let's focus on the targets we might hit.  And in that area of global (and national) Internet public policy, I fully agree with you that governments must have the final authority, as Google can't be asked to police itself given the capitalist imperative. 

But for Brazil, and the broader Internet global public policy agenda circa 2014, the fact that information and telecommunication industries exhibit winner-take-all economics, whether at national or global scale, is just a fact and not something we can develop a coherent new global public policy for. In the next 30 days.  I humbly suggest. 

My...25 cents.

Lee


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Mar 14 16:51:43 2014
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:51:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] ISOC Peru llama a renovar cargos - URGENTE
In-Reply-To: <38D2F5EE-4D65-497A-8A7F-B7855EE739DE@alfa-redi.org>
References: <38D2F5EE-4D65-497A-8A7F-B7855EE739DE@alfa-redi.org>
Message-ID: <20140314165143.1873098klctzyvof@www.ciencitec.com>

ISOC Peru llama a la Comunidad Internacional, para que se renueve la  
directiva y no se entornille nadie, espoleando el tema de Libertad de  
Expresion. El ejemplo empieza por casa.
Urgente elecciones en ISOC-PERU.
Jose F. Callo Romero
Miembro Fundador de ISOC-PERU




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 14 17:44:41 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:44:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] against all odds
Message-ID: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>



http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr

More to follow I guess.

Jeanette

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Mar 14 17:49:58 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 02:49:58 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOENgvAku__q_89ARyp43+dd5-vGG4yYoqKRxq1FMWoBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting....rumours or reality, time will tell, what will be the
governance mechanism, that again will be much of the debate throughout
the next few months...relinquishing control but how and in to what new
form of rules and principles are the challenges....

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>
> More to follow I guess.
>
> Jeanette
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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



-- 
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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 17:54:46 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:54:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com>

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y 
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 14 17:56:38 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:56:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>

And here comes the update:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.


Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>
>
> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>
> More to follow I guess.
>
> Jeanette

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Mar 14 17:57:30 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:57:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>

On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y 

NTIA Press Release - <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>

FYI,
/John


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

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:23:22 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:23:22 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
	<53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
	<CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtMNCEiMTYfkW=7wx3dCe+_J897WJAdgAQgZiGGE-bFqTw@mail.gmail.com>

This is actually an opportunity for IGC and Best Bits to prepare and
forward a statement with suggestion of possible models for governance
of such a decentralization. Be rest assured that all this is happening
just in time for the NetMundial in Brazil. I wouldn't waste such an
opportunity to ensure that our voice is heard well from this point
forward and all the forums thereof.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> Friday night. Interesting timing.
>
> On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>> And here comes the update:
>>
>>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>>
>>
>> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>>>
>>> More to follow I guess.
>>>
>>> Jeanette
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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



-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:43:57 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:43:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>

This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the use of the
term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in its use here.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:57 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y
>
> NTIA Press Release - <
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
> >
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/74b9b943/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:52:01 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:52:01 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D444FD1E-C054-4996-A166-15648DD2A042@gmail.com>

Wasnt that the specific purpose of the Sao Paulo process? It seems that the US is presenting itself as a first mover, when actually Brazil and others already did it last year. The US move needs further scrutiny and appropriate follow-up so that other efforts do not fade away in virtue of age old empty propositions. 

--
Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel
Sent from mobile device

> Em 14/03/2014, às 19:43, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the use of the term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in its use here.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:57 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y
>> 
>> NTIA Press Release - <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
>> 
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/8036e3c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:54:54 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:24:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198B8FFA@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
	<27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com>
	<D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198B8FFA@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0HjEm85=GtVqzLmKn2VG5Y+L7OCXhBveR_+iPks=PGCfg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

Great News. "From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet
stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be
temporary."  Yet there has been so much of politicization about the
continuing oversight, but this positive step by US Government now dissolves
all doubt.

The press release acknowledges that "ICANN as an organization has matured
and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and
transparency and its technical competence.". This is true enough for ICANN
to assume independent charge right away. Further improvements could be
recommended by the stakeholders in the Transition report to emerge, to
continue improvements to the Accountability and Transparency mechanism
during and after transition.

Sivasubramanian M





On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Shatan, Gregory S.
<GShatan at reedsmith.com>wrote:

> Here's the text:
>
>
>
> NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
>
>
> March 14, 2014
>
>
> News Media Contact:
>
>
>  NTIA, Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002, press at ntia.doc.gov
>
> WASHINGTON – To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet
> policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces
> its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
> multistakeholder community.  As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global
> stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by
> NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
>
> NTIA’s responsibility includes the procedural role of administering
> changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the
> lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving
> as the historic steward of the DNS.  NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to
> carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has
> a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root
> zone management functions.  Transitioning NTIA out of its role marks the
> final phase of the privatization of the DNS as outlined by the U.S.
> Government in 1997.
>
> “The timing is right to start the transition process,” said Assistant
> Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E.
> Strickling.  “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the
> global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”
>
> ICANN is uniquely positioned, as both the current IANA functions
> contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, as the appropriate party
> to convene the multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan.
>  NTIA has informed ICANN that it expects that in the development of the
> proposal, ICANN will work collaboratively with the directly affected
> parties, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet
> Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional
> Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators, VeriSign, and
> other interested global stakeholders.
>
> NTIA has communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must have
> broad community support and address the following four principles:
>  Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>  Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>  Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
> the IANA services; and,
>  Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>
> Consistent with the clear policy expressed in bipartisan resolutions of
> the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (S.Con.Res.50 and
> H.Con.Res.127), which affirmed the United States support for the
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, NTIA will not accept a
> proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an
> inter-governmental organization solution.
>
> From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders
> envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary.
>  The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that
> the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the
> private sector to take leadership for DNS management.”  ICANN as an
> organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its
> accountability and transparency and its technical competence.  At the same
> time, international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder
> model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the
> Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various
> Internet institutions.
>
> While stakeholders work through the ICANN-convened process to develop a
> transition proposal, NTIA’s current role will remain unchanged.  The
> current IANA functions contract expires September 30, 2015.
>
> For further information see: IANA Functions and Related Root Zone
> Management Transition Questions and Answers
>
> About NTIA
>
> NTIA is the Executive Branch agency that advises the President on
> telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and
> policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and
> adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, and
> ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for continued innovation and
> economic growth. To find out more about NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 5:58 PM
> To: 1Net List; <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
>
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y
>
> NTIA Press Release - <
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
> >
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>                                                                 * * *
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/cdc210ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 14 20:54:45 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:24:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0HjEm85=GtVqzLmKn2VG5Y+L7OCXhBveR_+iPks=PGCfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198B8FFA@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <CAHyAo0HjEm85=GtVqzLmKn2VG5Y+L7OCXhBveR_+iPks=PGCfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3E0AD9AA-990E-4162-90DA-309E58E7BD88@hserus.net>

This is an expected though long delayed move. That oversight was supposed to be temporary for the past 15 years at least.

--srs (iPad)

> On 15-Mar-2014, at 4:24, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> Great News. "From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary."  Yet there has been so much of politicization about the continuing oversight, but this positive step by US Government now dissolves all doubt. 
> 
> The press release acknowledges that "ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence.". This is true enough for ICANN to assume independent charge right away. Further improvements could be recommended by the stakeholders in the Transition report to emerge, to continue improvements to the Accountability and Transparency mechanism during and after transition.
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:
>> Here's the text:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions
>> 
>> 
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
>> 
>> 
>> March 14, 2014
>> 
>> 
>> News Media Contact:
>> 
>> 
>>  NTIA, Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002, press at ntia.doc.gov
>> 
>> WASHINGTON – To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.  As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
>> 
>> NTIA’s responsibility includes the procedural role of administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS.  NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root zone management functions.  Transitioning NTIA out of its role marks the final phase of the privatization of the DNS as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997.
>> 
>> “The timing is right to start the transition process,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling.  “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”
>> 
>> ICANN is uniquely positioned, as both the current IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, as the appropriate party to convene the multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan.  NTIA has informed ICANN that it expects that in the development of the proposal, ICANN will work collaboratively with the directly affected parties, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators, VeriSign, and other interested global stakeholders.
>> 
>> NTIA has communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must have broad community support and address the following four principles:
>>  Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>>  Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>>  Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and,
>>  Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>> 
>> Consistent with the clear policy expressed in bipartisan resolutions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (S.Con.Res.50 and H.Con.Res.127), which affirmed the United States support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.
>> 
>> From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary.  The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.”  ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence.  At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions.
>> 
>> While stakeholders work through the ICANN-convened process to develop a transition proposal, NTIA’s current role will remain unchanged.  The current IANA functions contract expires September 30, 2015.
>> 
>> For further information see: IANA Functions and Related Root Zone Management Transition Questions and Answers
>> 
>> About NTIA
>> 
>> NTIA is the Executive Branch agency that advises the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic growth. To find out more about NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
>> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 5:58 PM
>> To: 1Net List; <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y
>> 
>> NTIA Press Release - <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
>> 
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                                                                 * * *
>> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/046d93d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Mar 14 23:07:17 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:07:17 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <3E0AD9AA-990E-4162-90DA-309E58E7BD88@hserus.net>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272198B8FFA@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <CAHyAo0HjEm85=GtVqzLmKn2VG5Y+L7OCXhBveR_+iPks=PGCfg@mail.gmail.com> <3E0AD9AA-990E-4162-90DA-309E58E7BD88@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <5A7AC8583D4444F0B732A803E842CE70@Toshiba>

this is broadly along the lines of my submission to Brazil a few weeks ago, developed with a lot of people from all stakeholder groups contributing. (not that USG did is because of our submission; this step was reasonably predictable)

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-internalisation-of-the-former-iana-functions-under-a-multistakeholder-governance-model-involving-icann-and-associated-technical-organisations/105

The keys now will be a process that will come up with a solution by September 2015 broadly acceptable to major stakeholders (including USG).  One would hope the process examines suggestions such as those put forward by Avri and Milton. I note that inter-governmental processes have already been ruled out by USG. So if we want any advances by September 2015 or in the forseeable future we can forget about that – it won’t be accepted.

My main concern now is adoption of a reasonable process and timeframe to get to a solution. ICANN doesn’t actually operate at Internet speed, nor do most technical organisations. So without a timetable and a good process, not much will happen before September 2015 and an opportunity might be lost.

My submission suggested a first draft by September 2014, for discussion at IGF. And, in order to achieve that, use of outside consultants. I believe a clear timetable now needs to be developed to have a final proposal acceptable to major stakeholders by September 2015. Perfectly do-able, but wont happen without a good process and commitment to a timeframe. Nor will it happen without consultation with groups outside of ICANN. Brazil meeting should  at least try to outline such a high level timetable.


Ian Peter

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:54 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Sivasubramanian M 
Cc: Shatan, Gregory S. ; John Curran ; 1Net List 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body

This is an expected though long delayed move. That oversight was supposed to be temporary for the past 15 years at least.

--srs (iPad)

On 15-Mar-2014, at 4:24, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:


  Hello

  Great News. "From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary."  Yet there has been so much of politicization about the continuing oversight, but this positive step by US Government now dissolves all doubt. 


  The press release acknowledges that "ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence.". This is true enough for ICANN to assume independent charge right away. Further improvements could be recommended by the stakeholders in the Transition report to emerge, to continue improvements to the Accountability and Transparency mechanism during and after transition.


  Sivasubramanian M








  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:

    Here's the text:



    NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:


    March 14, 2014


    News Media Contact:


    NTIA, Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002, press at ntia.doc.gov

    WASHINGTON – To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.  As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).

    NTIA’s responsibility includes the procedural role of administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS.  NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root zone management functions.  Transitioning NTIA out of its role marks the final phase of the privatization of the DNS as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997.

    “The timing is right to start the transition process,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling.  “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”

    ICANN is uniquely positioned, as both the current IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, as the appropriate party to convene the multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan.  NTIA has informed ICANN that it expects that in the development of the proposal, ICANN will work collaboratively with the directly affected parties, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators, VeriSign, and other interested global stakeholders.

    NTIA has communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must have broad community support and address the following four principles:
    Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
    Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
    Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and,
    Maintain the openness of the Internet.

    Consistent with the clear policy expressed in bipartisan resolutions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (S.Con.Res.50 and H.Con.Res.127), which affirmed the United States support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.

    From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary.  The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.”  ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence.  At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions.

    While stakeholders work through the ICANN-convened process to develop a transition proposal, NTIA’s current role will remain unchanged.  The current IANA functions contract expires September 30, 2015.

    For further information see: IANA Functions and Related Root Zone Management Transition Questions and Answers

    About NTIA

    NTIA is the Executive Branch agency that advises the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic growth. To find out more about NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
    Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 5:58 PM
    To: 1Net List; <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
    Subject: Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body

    On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

    > http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mobile=y

    NTIA Press Release - <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>

    FYI,
    /John


    _______________________________________________
    discuss mailing list
    discuss at 1net.org
    http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




                                                                    * * *

    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

    _______________________________________________
    discuss mailing list
    discuss at 1net.org
    http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




  -- 
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
  India +91 99524 03099 
  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
  To be removed from the list, visit:
      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/f4ee2a72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Mar 14 23:20:49 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:20:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org>

McTim [2014-03-14 18:43]:
> This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the use of the
> term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in its use here.

McTim, I'd be interested in knowing why exactly you see this as being "a 
very large step".

In practical terms, what do you see as the significant and important 
changes this will lead to?

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/b4f87c8d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Mar 14 23:50:02 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:50:02 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] Re: U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <42778436-259B-4A8D-8009-A93FC155594B@hussein.me.ke>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <42778436-259B-4A8D-8009-A93FC155594B@hussein.me.ke>
Message-ID: <5323CDEA.4050403@cis-india.org>

Ali Hussein [2014-03-14 23:34]:
> Even as the US signals its willingness to give up oversight of the Internet to a global multi-stakeholder constituent

It bears keeping in mind that the US has no "oversight of the Internet". 
  The US government has no control over the Open Root Server Network 
project, for instance.  Other than the fact that we're used to them, 
there's no reason why the Internet couldn't run just fine without 
ICANN-as-we-know-it.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140314/71f92595/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sat Mar 15 07:06:13 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:06:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] [discuss] NTIA statement
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom"
smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.

Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/75cc61c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 07:08:49 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:08:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
 <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>

For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish their
role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do so.


In practical terms, I see ICANN "floating free" from its USG ties.  That is
what i got out of the Press Conference last night anyway (although I dialed
in late) so may be mistaken.

rgds,

McTim


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> McTim [2014-03-14 18:43]:
>
>  This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the use of the
>> term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in its use here.
>>
>
> McTim, I'd be interested in knowing why exactly you see this as being "a
> very large step".
>
> In practical terms, what do you see as the significant and important
> changes this will lead to?
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/65eebee9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar 15 07:12:30 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:42:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <D88B999B-27B0-4C14-8A7A-8344CBA75222@istaff.org>
References: <4D8E423F-1F07-4B50-BACD-3EDC68F6E86D@isi.edu>	<007b01cf3fe0$f9dfc650$ed9f52f0$@nvconsulting.biz>	<5683C8EF-0F1B-4498-8394-D8842A1CE32B@elon.edu>	<CF49BE18.671E2%nigel.hickson@icann.org> <D88B999B-27B0-4C14-8A7A-8344CBA75222@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <5324359E.90501@itforchange.net>

All.

The statement from US gov is welcome, and is a step in the right 
direction. One looks forward to hear more details.

It was always evident that when Fadi went to Brasilia to meet President 
Rousseff, he was carrying a message with some substance, if not fully 
specified. That alone would have deterred the President from her path to 
seek strong specific global response to the NSA outrage, which path 
seemed to go towards the UN. And deter it did. Meanwhile, as a quid pro 
quo, US had to made good its promise, and we see it unfolding now.

There always was this big gift wrapped box on the table -- the US/ICANN 
offer regarding oversight liberalization. It has however been unclear 
what is inside the box -- how big and substantial is the 'gift'. In the 
last few weeks, with US and ICANN both talking about lowering 
expectations from the NetMundial, one had begun to despair that it may 
not be worth peeping into the box at all, but this declaration raises 
some hopes again.

There are two important caveats though.

One, we know that the global outrage following Snowden's revelation, 
which has consolidated into a new level of awareness about global IG 
issues, and need for democratizing global IG, has had little to do with 
ICANN oversight. And it had all to do with other issues of control of 
the global Internet -- which I listed in an earlier email, like the 
monopolistic or oligopolistic US based Internet companies, application 
of US law globally, and so on.

As Post-Snowdon damage control, US has chosen just the right time and 
person to present the oversight liberalization gift to -- Rousseff's 
presidency. Brazil is one of the most important geo-political players on 
the IG stage, and Rousseff would love to have such a big gift related to 
the oversight of the most fascinating phenomenon of current times, the 
Internet, from the most powerful government of the world. It looks so 
good to get it, especially just a few months before the elections, where 
it can be put to some use. The problem however is, the gift may not be 
so alluring for Brazilian Presidency to forget the original issue which 
raised Brazil's heckles, and made the global community pose trust in it 
to lead the post-Snowden clean-up. US will be betting that this is what 
would happen. And I hope and trust the very well-respected and wise 
Brazilian establishment to not fall into the trap for a short term gain, 
which would undermine its long term global leadership in this area.

In any case, civil society groups that we work with will do their best 
that such over-shadowing of key global Internet governance issues, that 
the Brazil meeting promised to the global community, does not happen. It 
plans to write to the Brazilian government in this regard, and also 
raise the issue among Brazilian NGOs and the local as well as 
international media.NEtMundial must address non ICANN global IG issues 
at least on par with ICANN issues, if not more centrally.

Secondly, with regard to ICANN itself, the fact that ICANN is subject to 
US law is even more significant that NTIA's role in signing the root 
file of the Internet. The problem with NTIAs role was not whether it 
would routinely interfere with ICANN decisions, which it was careful 
enough to almost never do. It was the fact that the root of the Internet 
was under the control of US government, a control that could be misused 
at relatively extra-ordinary times, like a war, or other less dramatic 
foreign policy 'situations'. Nothing has changed in that regard. ICANN 
as a US non profit still remains fully subject to US laws, including 
such that are used in service of foreign policy imperatives.

One such law is theForeign Assets Control regulations, whereby any 
foreign asset in the US can be seized at any time, given the Executive's 
satisfaction of certain conditions. US corporations, and that includes 
ICANN can be barred from having any relationship with any entity in the 
country that this law may pick on for a larger number of possible 
reasons. There are also many other legal routes whereby ICANN can be 
legally instructed to disable entries on the root file, for instance, by 
a US court with regard to the top level domain of a generic drugs 
company which is found to be in repeated violation of US intellectual 
property laws.

In the circumstances, NTIA ceding its formal role of signing any root 
changes while having a significant symbolic significance, may not mean 
so much in real terms as it may appear at the first blush. Ceding the 
root signing authority must be accompanied with incorporation of ICANN 
as an international entity, under international law, with all its 
operations having complete immunity from US laws. This is the important 
part, and there seems to be no willingness at present to do so.

parminder


On Saturday 15 March 2014 03:36 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org> wrote:
>> ...
>> I hope and trust that the US announcement on IANA and the High Level
>> Meeting in Brazil will not signal the end of the dialogue. I, although
>> with some background on Internet Governance, have found the dialogue, and
>> the contribution of some of our leading thinkers on IG matters, to be of
>> real utility. I even feel confident of explaining IANA down the pub!
> If I am not mistaken, the USG announcement regarding IANA means that not only
> will the dialogue continue, but in addition, it now has a higher potential for
> outcomes that become reality.
>
> As Ali noted in an earlier post - "Be careful what you wish for"...
>
> :-)
> /John
>
> Disclaimer:  My views alone.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/c613e594/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 07:23:02 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:23:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>

Hi

ICANN Singapore starts next week, and this will be the focus of many discussions, beginning with the NCUC conference on Friday 21, at which Larry S. is keynoting.  People begin to travel there early next week, and D.C. beltway types will quick to react.  So the timing seems sensible enough.

It might be fun to now go back and read some of the adamant statements made on these lists over the past few months about the Net Mundial being part of a secret plot to preserve the status quo etc.

Cheers

Bill

On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:

> Friday night. Interesting timing.
> 
> On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> And here comes the update:
> 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
> 
> 
> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
> 
> 
> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
> 
> More to follow I guess.
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> __
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/00f17e2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar 15 07:32:39 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:02:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53243A57.4020907@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 15 March 2014 04:38 PM, McTim wrote:
> For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish 
> their role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do so.
>
>
> In practical terms, I see ICANN "floating free" from its USG ties. 
>  That is what i got out of the Press Conference last night anyway 
> (although I dialed in late) so may be mistaken.

Yes, you are wrong, free from USG ties is being free from application of 
US jurisdiction, which more significant part has not changed at all, 
unless of course USG plans to give away that as well, which would be 
really really appreciated... Any idea if that is planned?

parminder
>
> rgds,
>
> McTim
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pranesh Prakash 
> <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>
>     McTim [2014-03-14 18:43]:
>
>         This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the
>         use of the
>         term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in
>         its use here.
>
>
>     McTim, I'd be interested in knowing why exactly you see this as
>     being "a very large step".
>
>     In practical terms, what do you see as the significant and
>     important changes this will lead to?
>
>     -- 
>     Pranesh Prakash
>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>     T: +91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> | W:
>     http://cis-india.org
>     -------------------
>     Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law
>     School
>     M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147> | W:
>     http://yaleisp.org
>     PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/ca13bd90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sat Mar 15 07:40:33 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:40:33 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] Re: U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <42778436-259B-4A8D-8009-A93FC155594B@hussein.me.ke>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <42778436-259B-4A8D-8009-A93FC155594B@hussein.me.ke>
Message-ID: <9785AD8A-E7C6-43D4-B0E1-8EDEF5BEDA35@istaff.org>

On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:
> Can we rise up to the challenge? 

... and do so in a prompt manner?

Timeline: <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf>

FYI,
/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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 07:55:43 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <53243A57.4020907@itforchange.net>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
 <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <53243A57.4020907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiG6RZMtZVS1Cq4r+nXs=1aMTKpC=o2oquuB=_6HUpYYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:32 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Saturday 15 March 2014 04:38 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish
> their role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do so.
>
>
>  In practical terms, I see ICANN "floating free" from its USG ties.  That
> is what i got out of the Press Conference last night anyway (although I
> dialed in late) so may be mistaken.
>
>
> Yes, you are wrong, free from USG ties is being free from application of
> US jurisdiction, which more significant part has not changed at all
>



If there is to be no more contract (the one that says that ICANN MUST be
domiciled in the USA, then it has changed completely and ICANN is free to
base itself anywhere.



> , unless of course USG plans to give away that as well, which would be
> really really appreciated... Any idea if that is planned?
>

they have just signaled their willingness for this to happen if I am not
mistaken.

rgds,

McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/f1d9ed6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar 15 08:12:51 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:42:51 +0530
Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of
 Web Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 15 March 2014 05:25 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>
> If there is to be no more contract (the one that says that ICANN MUST 
> be domiciled in the USA, then it has changed completely and ICANN is 
> free to base itself anywhere.
>
>     , unless of course USG plans to give away that as well, which
>     would be really really appreciated... Any idea if that is planned?
>
>
> they have just signaled their willingness for this to happen if I am 
> not mistaken.


This is interesting. So you say now ICANN may go anywhere it wishes to, 
it is upto the ICANN to do so. Hopefully, ICANN should apply to move to 
whichever country that gives it jurisdictional/ legal immunity through 
some national level instrument (Switzerland ?), although finally some 
kind of international legal framework for sorting disputes etc will 
still be needed.

So,  ICANN should tell the US that either it brings up a special 
legislation protecting it from US jurisdiction etc (not sure if this is 
constitutionally possible) or it moves to another place from where such 
an offer comes..

parminder
>
> rgds,
>
> McTim
>
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/1d74e227/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sat Mar 15 08:49:42 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:49:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com> <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>

On Mar 15, 2014, at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> This is interesting. So you say now ICANN may go anywhere it wishes to, it is up to the ICANN to do so.

Let all of us hope it is _not_ up to ICANN to make such a decision; it should be a matter for the global 
Internet community to consider and then make the final recommendations.  As I understand it, ICANN's 
role is in convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to develop a plan, not to decide
the matter itself.

> Hopefully, ICANN should apply to move to whichever country that gives it jurisdictional/ legal immunity through some national level instrument (Switzerland ?), although finally some kind of international legal framework for sorting disputes etc will still be needed.
> 
> So,  ICANN should tell the US that either it brings up a special legislation protecting it from US jurisdiction etc (not sure if this is constitutionally possible) or it moves to another place from where such an offer comes..

I imagine that either of the above are a possible output of the community consultation process.

NTIA issued an IANA Transition Q & A document that includes one requirement that may have
relevance <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/qa_-_iana-for_web_eop.pdf>  -
"NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-
governmental organization solution."   

Your suggested approaches should be considered as possible options so long as they don't 
conflict with that NTIA requirement.

FYI,
/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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 08:58:23 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:58:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com> <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net> <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgeKxMhR4A3pHnYhS3gDe3D0McxF7zOZP6eJ++MU+3xmg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:49 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2014, at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> > This is interesting. So you say now ICANN may go anywhere it wishes to,
> it is up to the ICANN to do so.
>
> Let all of us hope it is _not_ up to ICANN to make such a decision; it
> should be a matter for the global
> Internet community to consider and then make the final recommendations.
>  As I understand it, ICANN's
> role is in convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to
> develop a plan, not to decide
> the matter itself.
>


Agreed, and the first exercise of that begins in ~5 minutes:


You are invited to join Board Chair Steve Crocker and Fadi Chehadé on a
brief community call to discuss Friday's announcement that stewardship of
the Internet technical functions will transfer from the U.S. government to
the Internet¹s global multistakeholder community. ICANN¹s role in managing
these functions and the Domain Name System will not change.



This call is just the beginning of a community-wide dialogue about the
development of the transitional process. In the coming months, we will rely
heavily on you, our community members, to determine the best way to achieve
this long-awaited goal.

I look forward to speaking with you soon, and in the future, on this
important and exciting development. And please note, we had planned to talk
to you about this on Sunday, but unfortunately the NTIA had to move their
announcement up to today as it was leaked to the media.

*Saturday, 15 March*

*Time is 14:00-15:00 UTC*



GMT/UTC - 14:00, Saturday

Istanbul - 16:00, Saturday

Washington, D.C. - 10:00, Saturday

Los Angeles - 07:00, Saturday

Brussels - 15:00, Saturday

Singapore - 22:00, Saturday

Tokyo - 23:00, Saturday

London - 14:00, Saturday

Toronto - 10:00, Saturday

Stockholm - 15:00, Saturday

*Conference information:*

*Conference Passcode: *

Participant passcode: 6123291 (for participants)



US Toll Free Access Number:        866-297-1588

US Access Number:                         1-210-795-1143



International numbers - see below



_____________________________________________________________________





*Dial in numbers:*

*Country*



*Toll Numbers*


*Freephone/Toll Free Number*

ARGENTINA





0800-777-0498

AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE:

61-8-8121-4863

1-800-758-196

AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE:

61-7-3102-0965

1-800-758-196

AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA:

61-2-6100-1965

1-800-758-196

AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE:

61-3-9010-7734

1-800-758-196

AUSTRALIA

PERTH:

61-8-9467-5244

1-800-758-196

AUSTRALIA

SYDNEY:

61-2-8211-1396

1-800-758-196

AUSTRIA



43-1-92-80-003

0800-677-861

BELGIUM



32-1-150-0312

0800-4-9471

BRAZIL





0800-8912026

CHILE





1230-020-2453

CHINA

CHINA A:

86-400-810-4761

10800-712-1202

CHINA

CHINA B:

86-400-810-4761

10800-120-1202

COLOMBIA





01800-9-156439

CZECH REPUBLIC



420-2-25-98-56-16

800-700-168

DENMARK



45-7014-0239

8088-2100

ESTONIA





800-011-1121

FINLAND



358-9-5424-7159

0-800-1-12771

FRANCE

LYON:

33-4-26-69-12-76

080-563-9909

FRANCE

MARSEILLE:

33-4-86-06-00-76

080-563-9909

FRANCE

PARIS:

33-1-70-75-25-35

080-563-9909

GERMANY



49-69-2222-3198

0800-101-6627

GREECE



30-80-1-100-0674

00800-12-6609

HONG KONG



852-3001-3842

800-968-764

HUNGARY





06-800-17241

INDIA

INDIA A:



000-800-852-1218

INDIA

INDIA B:



000-800-001-6283

INDIA

INDIA C:



1800-300-00461

INDONESIA





001-803-011-3502

IRELAND



353-1-247-5274

1800-992-870

ISRAEL





1-80-9303035

ITALY

MILAN:

39-02-3601-0953

800-985-849

JAPAN

OSAKA:

81-6-7739-4764

0034-800-40-0719

JAPAN

TOKYO:

81-3-5539-5164

0034-800-40-0719

LATVIA





8000-3098

LUXEMBOURG



352-27-000-1351

MALAYSIA





1-800-80-8124

MEXICO





001-866-627-0579

NETHERLANDS



31-20-718-8530

0800-023-4392

NEW ZEALAND



64-9-970-4646

0800-447-834

NORWAY



47-21-59-00-49

800-15497

PANAMA





011-001-800-5072083

PERU





0800-53753

PHILIPPINES



63-2-858-3710

POLAND





00-800-1211184

PORTUGAL





8008-12439

RUSSIA





8-10-8002-9873011

SAUDI ARABIA





800-8-110076

SINGAPORE



65-6883-9208

800-120-4284

SLOVAK REPUBLIC



421-2-322-422-16

SOUTH AFRICA





080-09-93384

SOUTH KOREA



82-2-6744-1062

00798-14800-6326

SPAIN



34-91-414-40-78

800-098-194

SWEDEN



46-8-505-96-328

0200-897-068

SWITZERLAND



41-44-580-4210

0800-000-782

TAIWAN



886-2-2795-7358

00801-137-694

THAILAND





001-800-1206-65092

UNITED KINGDOM

BIRMINGHAM:

44-121-210-9016

0800-279-3590

UNITED KINGDOM

GLASGOW:

44-141-202-3216

0800-279-3590

UNITED KINGDOM

LEEDS:

44-113-301-2116

0800-279-3590

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON:

44-20-7950-6551

0800-279-3590

UNITED KINGDOM

MANCHESTER:

44-161-601-1416

0800-279-3590

URUGUAY





000-413-598-3431

USA



1-210-795-1143

866-297-1588

VENEZUELA





0800-1-00-2797











>
> > Hopefully, ICANN should apply to move to whichever country that gives it
> jurisdictional/ legal immunity through some national level instrument
> (Switzerland ?), although finally some kind of international legal
> framework for sorting disputes etc will still be needed.
> >
> > So,  ICANN should tell the US that either it brings up a special
> legislation protecting it from US jurisdiction etc (not sure if this is
> constitutionally possible) or it moves to another place from where such an
> offer comes..
>
> I imagine that either of the above are a possible output of the community
> consultation process.
>
> NTIA issued an IANA Transition Q & A document that includes one
> requirement that may have
> relevance <
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/qa_-_iana-for_web_eop.pdf>
>  -
> "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
> government or an inter-
> governmental organization solution."
>
> Your suggested approaches should be considered as possible options so long
> as they don't
> conflict with that NTIA requirement.
>
> FYI,
> /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
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/07c3dfe7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 09:15:39 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:15:39 -0300
Subject: [governance] [discuss] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9905CCAC-54E9-44FF-AADB-1A94F3EA955E@gmail.com>

+1

--
Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel
Sent from mobile device

> Em 15/03/2014, às 08:06, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> escreveu:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
> 
> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
> 
> Louis
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/8f7e3374/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sat Mar 15 09:19:39 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:19:39 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] Re: U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <20140315130729.D83072136C5@smtp2.arin.net>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com> <20140315130729.D83072136C5@smtp2.arin.net>
Message-ID: <6A16AAEB-4F02-4F16-942C-30AAA4703241@istaff.org>

On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> ... the March 14, 2014, alliance of the 14 I*leaders (some say "USurpers" of the Multitude's power).

Wait - I thought that was the "statUS-quo" team...  must I update my glossary so soon? 

It is indeed remarkable how quickly your terminology adapts to the circumstances - bravo Michel!

/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/c97677d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kstubbs at afilias.info  Sat Mar 15 09:43:47 2014
From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:43:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <53243A57.4020907@itforchange.net>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com> <53243A57.4020907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53245913.4000308@afilias.info>

Speaking personally here !

Paraminder & others..

I constantly see specific references to " being free from USG ties is 
being free from application of US jurisdiction "

What are you referring to here ? Certainly not contract jurisdiction.  
ICANN has very significant numbers of
contracts (i.e. registry, registrar etc)  .. all with US (i.e. 
California domicile).  These contracts go on for years
and jurisdiction cannot be changed without agreement of all the 
contracted parties.

So far I have seen very few specific examples of exactly what the impact 
of the change would be .
The only real impact I see would be the preclusion of the US blocking a 
re-delegation of a CCTLD administration
for some political motive, which by the way, to the best of my 
knowledge, HAS NEVER HAPPENED
in the 20 years I have been involved in this process.

Is this where all the concerns lie ?

Ken Stubbs

On 3/15/2014 7:32 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Saturday 15 March 2014 04:38 PM, McTim wrote:
>> For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish 
>> their role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do 
>> so.
>>
>>
>> In practical terms, I see ICANN "floating free" from its USG ties. 
>>  That is what i got out of the Press Conference last night anyway 
>> (although I dialed in late) so may be mistaken.
>
> Yes, you are wrong, free from USG ties is being free from application 
> of US jurisdiction, which more significant part has not changed at 
> all, unless of course USG plans to give away that as well, which would 
> be really really appreciated... Any idea if that is planned?
>
> parminder
>>
>> rgds,
>>
>> McTim
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pranesh Prakash 
>> <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     McTim [2014-03-14 18:43]:
>>
>>         This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the
>>         use of the
>>         term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in
>>         its use here.
>>
>>
>>     McTim, I'd be interested in knowing why exactly you see this as
>>     being "a very large step".
>>
>>     In practical terms, what do you see as the significant and
>>     important changes this will lead to?
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Pranesh Prakash
>>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>     T: +91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> | W:
>>     http://cis-india.org
>>     -------------------
>>     Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law
>>     School
>>     M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147> | W:
>>     http://yaleisp.org
>>     PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>



---
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/0ce3d2f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar 15 11:06:07 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:36:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <53245913.4000308@afilias.info>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com>
 <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
 <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org>
 <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <53243A57.4020907@itforchange.net>
 <53245913.4000308@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <144c6473f90.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

If they didn't block saddams iq, the assads sy etc despite several other 
active trade bans and a full blown war, parminder should remain reasonably 
confident that this particular sky isn't going to fall on our collective heads.


On 15 March 2014 7:13:57 pm Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:

> Speaking personally here !
>
> Paraminder & others..
>
> I constantly see specific references to " being free from USG ties is being 
> free from application of US jurisdiction "
>
> What are you referring to here ? Certainly not contract jurisdiction. ICANN 
> has very significant numbers of
> contracts (i.e. registry, registrar etc)  .. all with US (i.e. California 
> domicile).  These contracts go on for years
> and jurisdiction cannot be changed without agreement of all the contracted 
> parties.
>
> So far I have seen very few specific examples of exactly what the impact of 
> the change would be .
> The only real impact I see would be the preclusion of the US blocking a 
> re-delegation of a CCTLD administration
> for some political motive, which by the way, to the best of my knowledge, 
> HAS NEVER HAPPENED
> in the 20 years I have been involved in this process.
>
> Is this where all the concerns lie ?
>
> Ken Stubbs
>
> On 3/15/2014 7:32 AM, parminder wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday 15 March 2014 04:38 PM, McTim wrote:
> >> For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish 
> their role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do so.
> >>
> >>
> >> In practical terms, I see ICANN "floating free" from its USG ties.  That 
> is what i got out of the Press Conference last night anyway (although I 
> dialed in late) so may be mistaken.
> >
> > Yes, you are wrong, free from USG ties is being free from application of 
> US jurisdiction, which more significant part has not changed at all, unless 
> of course USG plans to give away that as well, which would be really really 
> appreciated... Any idea if that is planned?
> >
> > parminder
> >>
> >> rgds,
> >>
> >> McTim
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org 
> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     McTim [2014-03-14 18:43]:
> >>
> >>         This is a very large step. am hoping all those who decry the
> >>         use of the
> >>         term "globalisation" of Internet Governance will rejoice in
> >>         its use here.
> >>
> >>
> >>     McTim, I'd be interested in knowing why exactly you see this as
> >>     being "a very large step".
> >>
> >>     In practical terms, what do you see as the significant and
> >>     important changes this will lead to?
> >>
> >>     -- Pranesh Prakash
> >>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> >>     T: +91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> | W:
> >>     http://cis-india.org
> >>     -------------------
> >>     Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law
> >>     School
> >>     M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147> | W:
> >>     http://yaleisp.org
> >>     PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Cheers,
> >>
> >> McTim
> >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> >
>
>
>
> ---
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/7e7d8ce0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Mar 15 12:25:19 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:25:19 +0000
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com> <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net>
 <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <d9249a23c2284a9f970aeb9ee61a0dcf@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Well, the NTIA announcement certainly paves the way for more focused and productive discussions in Brazil. It eliminates "the status quo" as an option. 

I agree with John Curran here:

-----Original Message-----
> Let all of us hope it is _not_ up to ICANN to make such a decision; it should be a 
> matter for the global Internet community to consider and then make the final 
> recommendations.  As I understand it, ICANN's role is in convening stakeholders 
> across the global Internet community to develop a plan, not to decide the matter itself.

Since the Brazil meeting is convened by ICANN and Brazil, I think this is a mandate for us to take up IANA reform seriously in Sao Paulo in April.

Furthermore, I would refer people back to the IGP plan, and the call to separate the globalization/reform of the IANA functions from the broader and more difficult reforms that must be made in ICANN's policy making process, domicile, etc. Parminder's comments confuse these two things. 

Let's do one thing at a time, so that each can be done right. The distinction between ICANN's policy process, its corporate domicile, its contracts with registries, etc., with the globalization of the IANA functions has been reiterated many times on this list. We don't have to change everything about ICANN in one stage. Once the IANA functions are dealt with, a lot of options open up regarding the policy process. 

> NTIA issued an IANA Transition Q & A document that includes one 
> requirement that may have relevance  - "NTIA will not accept a proposal that 
> replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-
> governmental organization solution."   

This is good, too. Basically it takes Principle #2 of the IGP paper (don't internationalize the NTIA's role, end it) and makes it a _requirement_  of the transition. 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar 15 12:28:51 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:28:51 +0000
Subject: [discuss] [governance] Re: U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <9785AD8A-E7C6-43D4-B0E1-8EDEF5BEDA35@istaff.org>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com>
 <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
 <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org>
 <42778436-259B-4A8D-8009-A93FC155594B@hussein.me.ke>
 <9785AD8A-E7C6-43D4-B0E1-8EDEF5BEDA35@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <ece85a3ef28348c581f265a5a6394a9f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

This is ridiculous. If ICANN wants to convene an inclusive process calling a meeting 12 hours after the NTIA announcement is not a very good way to start.

-----Original Message-----
On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:
> Can we rise up to the challenge? 

... and do so in a prompt manner?

Timeline: <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf>


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 13:00:19 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:00:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] EU Parliament Committee to Cast Crucial Vote
 on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <758b27e24395dea578290eba2ce47a55@localhost.localdomain>
References: <758b27e24395dea578290eba2ce47a55@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <0ad301cf4070$0cacf4d0$2606de70$@gmail.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of La Quadrature du Net
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:40 AM
To: a2k at lists.keionline.org
Subject: [A2k] EU Parliament Committee to Cast Crucial Vote on Net Neutrality

Themes: NET NEUTRALITY, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, EUROPEAN SINGLE MARKET FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, PILAR DEL CASTILLO VERA, JENS ROHDE, CATHERINE TRAUTMANN, NEELIE KROES

La Quadrature du Net – For immediate release

Permanent link: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-parliament-committee-to-cast-crucial-vote-on-net-neutrality


EU Parliament Committee to Cast Crucial Vote on Net Neutrality



*** Paris, 14 March 2014 — On Tuesday, 18 March at 10 a.m., the “Industry” (ITRE) committee of the European Parliament will take a crucial decision for the future of Net Neutrality in Europe. The adoption of the report could mark a point of no return. Two conflicting visions for the future of the Internet oppose the two largest political groups in the EU Parliament, the social democratic party (S&D) and the conservative party (EPP). The outcome of the vote might be decided by the MEPs of the liberal group (ALDE) who appear not to have chosen which vision they will support, although their rapporteur, Jens Rohde [1], is pushing for the adoption of anti-Net Neutrality provisions. If adopted, these provisions would end the Internet as we know it, harming the freedom of communication and innovation. ***

The ITRE committee had been scheduled to finally adopt the Neelie Kroes' report [2] on the European Single Market for Electronic Communications on 24 February. But because of the unavailability of the 22 linguistic versions of the amendments to be voted, the members of the ITRE committee decided to postpone the decision after one and a half hours of agitated discussion.

Before that date, the work in shadow meetings had been intense, as the chapter addressing the open Internet divided political groups. The proposal of Pilar del Castillo Vera (ES – EPP), the ITRE rapporteur on this dossier, distorts the principle of Net Neutrality to please the telecom lobby. Her compromise amendments ([3] pdf commented by LQDN) bypass Net Neutrality by allowing telecom operators to make deals with Internet services (e.g. YouTube or Netflix) to grant them priorised delivery through so-called “specialised services”. Unfortunately her proposals are supported by her group, as a whole, even if EPP members in the “Civil Liberties” (LIBE) committee broadly supported [4] the provisions defending Net Neutrality.

MEP Catherine Trautmann (FR – S&D), shadow rapporteur for her group, has now taken a firm position in defense of innovation and competition in the digital economy. Mrs Trautmann has proposed another version of the same compromise amendment [5] but which now states clearly that "specialised services" cannot be used by big telecom operators in partnership with Internet giants to circumvent Net Neutrality and thus dominate the Internet and the wider digital economy (see a comparison table [6] on the two amendments).

At this stage, the battle for an open Internet is far from won. The members of the liberal group [7] (ALDE) – whose orientation will be key in determining the outcome of the vote – have so far refused to side with the Socio-Democrats and the Greens, supporting instead the dangerous approach of rapporteur Del Castillo.

It is important that European citizens urge all ITRE MEPs, especially those in the ALDE group, to protect the public interest by adopting Trautmann's compromise amendment on “Open Internet” rather than Del Castillo's.

“In the upcoming vote of the 'Industry' committee, the Parliament must seize the opportunity to defend the Internet against telecom operators and US Internet giants. The provisions proposed by both EU commissioner Neelie Kroes and the Parliament's rapporteur Pilar del Castillo Vera contain huge loopholes posing a real threat to Net Neutrality, competition and freedom of choice for Internet users. They must be rejected. In the context of approaching European elections, citizens need to hold their representatives accountable and ensure that the Internet as we know it is protected from the short-sighted business interests of dominant corporations.” concludes Félix Tréguer, cofounder of the association La Quadrature du Net.

Every European citizen can act to influence the evolution of Net Neutrality by calling on their MEPs to establish solid protections of the free Internet. To get on board, please visit the campaign website savetheinternet.eu [8].





* References *

1. https://memopol.lqdn.fr/europe/parliament/deputy/JensRohde/

2. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/kroes-unacceptable-anti-net-neutrality-law-rushed-despite-criticisms

3. https://www.laquadrature.net/files/20140218_ITRE_NetNeutrality_DraftCA4_OpenInternet_LQDN.pdf

4. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-parliament-civil-liberties-committee-paves-the-way-for-real-net-neutrality

5. http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Voting_List_ITRE_on_Single_Market_Regulation#Article_2.15

6. http://savetheinternet.eu/f/CastillovsTrautmann.pdf

7. Jens ROHDE (Denmark), Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN (Romania), Jürgen CREUTZMANN (Germany), Brian CROWLEY (Ireland), Fiona HALL (United Kingdom), Kent JOHANSSON (Sweden).

8. http://savetheinternet.eu




** About La Quadrature du Net **


La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that defends the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. 

In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age.

La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International.

List of supporting organisations: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-la-quadrature-du-net




** Press contact and press room **

contact at laquadrature.net, +33 (0) 972 294 426

https://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room





_______________________________________________
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 wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 13:36:14 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:36:14 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <d9249a23c2284a9f970aeb9ee61a0dcf@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com> <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net> <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org> <d9249a23c2284a9f970aeb9ee61a0dcf@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B1D657F0-10F0-4629-ABA2-8A87ACDFE1EE@gmail.com>


On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Well, the NTIA announcement certainly paves the way for more focused and productive discussions in Brazil.

Let’s hope the same can be said about Singapore

Bill

> It eliminates "the status quo" as an option. 
> 
> I agree with John Curran here:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>> Let all of us hope it is _not_ up to ICANN to make such a decision; it should be a 
>> matter for the global Internet community to consider and then make the final 
>> recommendations.  As I understand it, ICANN's role is in convening stakeholders 
>> across the global Internet community to develop a plan, not to decide the matter itself.
> 
> Since the Brazil meeting is convened by ICANN and Brazil, I think this is a mandate for us to take up IANA reform seriously in Sao Paulo in April.
> 
> Furthermore, I would refer people back to the IGP plan, and the call to separate the globalization/reform of the IANA functions from the broader and more difficult reforms that must be made in ICANN's policy making process, domicile, etc. Parminder's comments confuse these two things. 
> 
> Let's do one thing at a time, so that each can be done right. The distinction between ICANN's policy process, its corporate domicile, its contracts with registries, etc., with the globalization of the IANA functions has been reiterated many times on this list. We don't have to change everything about ICANN in one stage. Once the IANA functions are dealt with, a lot of options open up regarding the policy process. 
> 
>> NTIA issued an IANA Transition Q & A document that includes one 
>> requirement that may have relevance  - "NTIA will not accept a proposal that 
>> replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-
>> governmental organization solution."   
> 
> This is good, too. Basically it takes Principle #2 of the IGP paper (don't internationalize the NTIA's role, end it) and makes it a _requirement_  of the transition. 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 13:39:25 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:39:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>

Actually it turns out the timing was advanced from Monday to Friday evening by a press leak.  But Monday should still be interesting, a lot of statements getting readied for roll out.

Bill

On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:23 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> ICANN Singapore starts next week, and this will be the focus of many discussions, beginning with the NCUC conference on Friday 21, at which Larry S. is keynoting.  People begin to travel there early next week, and D.C. beltway types will quick to react.  So the timing seems sensible enough.
> 
> It might be fun to now go back and read some of the adamant statements made on these lists over the past few months about the Net Mundial being part of a secret plot to preserve the status quo etc.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> Friday night. Interesting timing.
>> 
>> On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> And here comes the update:
>> 
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>> 
>> 
>> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>> 
>> 
>> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>> 
>> More to follow I guess.
>> 
>> Jeanette
>> 
>> __

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/cff7cde5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 13:53:10 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:53:10 -0300
Subject: [governance] [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com> <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net> <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <BA61D280-7AD2-4A84-8CD8-20CBFFAB1355@gmail.com>

Great perception, John.
I would just like to highlight that other members of the INet community should seriously dodge any sort of conditionality imposed by the US government at this point. Any alternative to the status quo shall be bottom-up. No matter if the final result coincides with the interests of those willing to relinquish the IANA functions from  US control, the "we dont accept this or that" should be strongly condemned from inception. 

--
Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel
Sent from mobile device

> Em 15/03/2014, às 09:49, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> escreveu:
> 
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>> This is interesting. So you say now ICANN may go anywhere it wishes to, it is up to the ICANN to do so.
> 
> Let all of us hope it is _not_ up to ICANN to make such a decision; it should be a matter for the global 
> Internet community to consider and then make the final recommendations.  As I understand it, ICANN's 
> role is in convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to develop a plan, not to decide
> the matter itself.
> 
>> Hopefully, ICANN should apply to move to whichever country that gives it jurisdictional/ legal immunity through some national level instrument (Switzerland ?), although finally some kind of international legal framework for sorting disputes etc will still be needed.
>> 
>> So,  ICANN should tell the US that either it brings up a special legislation protecting it from US jurisdiction etc (not sure if this is constitutionally possible) or it moves to another place from where such an offer comes..
> 
> I imagine that either of the above are a possible output of the community consultation process.
> 
> NTIA issued an IANA Transition Q & A document that includes one requirement that may have
> relevance <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/qa_-_iana-for_web_eop.pdf>  -
> "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-
> governmental organization solution."   
> 
> Your suggested approaches should be considered as possible options so long as they don't 
> conflict with that NTIA requirement.
> 
> FYI,
> /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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/ea00deec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Sat Mar 15 14:04:40 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:04:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53249638.8010105@apc.org>

Hi all

Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans
for a reaction from Best Bits?
http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068

Anriette

JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)

PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

*APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain
name functions*

14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce
Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions
to the global multi-stakeholder community
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
the openness of the internet.

“This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really
effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal
footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently
lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies
in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions
about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive
Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very
constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique
opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance
ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from
developing countries,” she added.

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
<http://www.netmundial.br> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

APC’s proposals can be read here <http://www.apc.org/en/node/19043/>

About APC
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international
network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone
to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a
more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its
members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access
to a free and open internet.

Press contacts
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
PO Box 29755
Melville, GT 2109
South Africa

(END/2014)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/0de728c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Sat Mar 15 14:06:45 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:06:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] [discuss] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>

Disagree,

Different department.

j


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom"
> smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>
> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>
> Louis
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/77ae1cb3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:15:09 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:15:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <53249638.8010105@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org>
Message-ID: <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>

I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)
On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits? 
> http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068
> 
> Anriette
> 
> JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)
> 
> PRESS STATEMENT
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> 
> APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions
> 
> 14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
> 
> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
> 
> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
> 
> “This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added.
> 
> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
> 
> APC’s proposals can be read here
> 
> About APC
> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.
> 
> Press contacts
> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
> Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
> Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
> PO Box 29755
> Melville, GT 2109
> South Africa
> 
> (END/2014)
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/d58aa575/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Mar 15 14:25:13 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:25:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com> <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net> <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com> <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53249B09.6090801@cis-india.org>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2014-03-15 7:08:49]:
> For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish their
> role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do so.

I see people having wildly divergent views on this.  To explain further:

Some have argued for years that it the US's oversight authority not very 
relevant, and thus calling for the US to relinquish its role is not a 
very significant IG issue.  I've sometimes associated you with this 
view, though I might be mistaken.  In your last email you seemed to 
indicate that this shift is significant.  I was wondering whether it is 
significant only for those who've been asking the US to relinquish its 
role, or whether it is significant for IG per se (and significant in 
your eyes).

> In practical terms, I see ICANN "floating free" from its USG ties.  That is
> what i got out of the Press Conference last night anyway (although I dialed
> in late) so may be mistaken.

I was pursuing the above line of reasoning when asking about the 
"practical" implications.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/9267633d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:31:30 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:31:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>

+1 A BB statement Monday would be a good thing, there will be push back from opponents of change and CS support would be helpful.

BD

On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits? 
>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)
>> 
>> PRESS STATEMENT
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>> 
>> APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions
>> 
>> 14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
>> 
>> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>> 
>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
>> 
>> “This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added.
>> 
>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
>> 
>> APC’s proposals can be read here
>> 
>> About APC
>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.
>> 
>> Press contacts
>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
>> Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
>> Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
>> PO Box 29755
>> Melville, GT 2109
>> South Africa
>> 
>> (END/2014)
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/f9d312a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:34:45 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:34:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <53249B09.6090801@cis-india.org>
References: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>
 <27B5F003-280A-4ACA-B1DD-C1E54D7FC1CC@gmail.com> <D1A369FA-5F71-4B8B-B88B-356B0A8663DD@corp.arin.net>
 <CACAaNxjqq4AXNn4g4=NXL0dbvADRPm7kijG4L=5uSU=ziHzM8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5323C711.9080305@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxjAhWSq+3Jj6fm1EmRYRfpFdLRphGWmcRjgq0-qRx9H5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <53249B09.6090801@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhns8xXUHcP1owtRamcVQPzjB0O1+RXOrRwizY9oNF4DA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2014-03-15 7:08:49]:
>
>  For a very long time indeed, many have asked for the US to relinquish
>> their
>> role.  Now they have signaled their willingness/readiness to do so.
>>
>
> I see people having wildly divergent views on this.  To explain further:
>
> Some have argued for years that it the US's oversight authority not very
> relevant



Agreed, this has been my position all along.



> and thus calling for the US to relinquish its role is not a very
> significant IG issue.  I've sometimes associated you with this view, though
> I might be mistaken.



Since it is 'the burr under the saddle" to so many, it is highly
significant.

Relevant!=Significant.




>  In your last email you seemed to indicate that this shift is significant.
>  I was wondering whether it is significant only for those who've been
> asking the US to relinquish its role, or whether it is significant for IG
> per se (and significant in your eyes).
>
>

It is significant to me as now those to whom it was of utmost importance
can no longer use it as their raison d'etre in IG and we can hopefully move
on to more important things like connecting the not-yet-connected.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/340cc48d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:47:45 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:47:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0b3f01cf407f$0e47e250$2ad7a6f0$@gmail.com>

Am I the only one who reads the NTIA statement as trading off something which is not of core interest i.e. control over the DNS function (it can’t under any but the most extraordinary circumstances be used in any case), for something that seems t be of fundamental and core interest i.e. implanting Multi-stakeholderism at the very heart of the emerging mechanisms/institutions of global (Internet) Governance.

 

So the question is, why does the USG see (a still undefined) “multi-stakeholderism” as being so important?

 

M

 

 

BD

 

On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:





I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)

On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:





Hi all

Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits? 
http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068

Anriette

JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)

PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions

14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> .'

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade. 

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.

“This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added. 

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br/>  ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014. 

 <http://www.apc.org/en/node/19043/> APC’s proposals can be read here

About APC
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.

Press contacts
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
PO Box 29755
Melville, GT 2109
South Africa

(END/2014)

 

____________________________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/24dd31f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Sat Mar 15 15:02:08 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:02:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>

Here is a version that could be used as a basis for the Best Bits
statement. I added a note about this being 'just one' step towards more
inclusive and accountable governance, even if a significant step.

Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.

What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
used in making these decisions.

The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc.  This
is not going to make it easier.

The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach, power.

Anriette


*DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
internet domain name functions*

Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
the openness of the internet.

This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
important for stakeholders from developing countries.

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
<http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/2046a720/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 15:12:38 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 07:12:38 +1200
Subject: [governance] NTIA response
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDR1ZYre3kw8yG31iapdy0LR56UtDseA4yLroAruwouOw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Coordinators, and the IGC,

The significance of the announcement demands that the IGC places a press
statement. I would suggest the coordinators initiate a draft and put it to
the list to comment and make revisons before issuing a call for consensus.

It is critical that the IGC makes the statement as the IGC. The fact that
we are not quick enough like the APC or Best Bits is immaterial as we need
to take the time to reflect on the subtleties and diplomatic significance
of such an announcement.

Kind Regards,
Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/3277ec49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 15:37:15 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:37:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: NTIA response
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiDR1ZYre3kw8yG31iapdy0LR56UtDseA4yLroAruwouOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDR1ZYre3kw8yG31iapdy0LR56UtDseA4yLroAruwouOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v94mU5QvqbjoWK59CtAQZ8OeTkvFBBF=VnAYVHXPM9h5g@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi Sala et al.,

No worries, I am working on a draft as you post. Thanks for the reminder...
always useful in case we miss something, one never knows.
Hopefully there will be a draft press release for your appreciation and
suggestions to all tonight (UTC).

Mawaki


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Coordinators, and the IGC,
>
> The significance of the announcement demands that the IGC places a press
> statement. I would suggest the coordinators initiate a draft and put it to
> the list to comment and make revisons before issuing a call for consensus.
>
> It is critical that the IGC makes the statement as the IGC. The fact that
> we are not quick enough like the APC or Best Bits is immaterial as we need
> to take the time to reflect on the subtleties and diplomatic significance
> of such an announcement.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/8679391f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 17:07:31 2014
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:07:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] ISOC Peru llama a renovar cargos - URGENTE
In-Reply-To: <20140314165143.1873098klctzyvof@www.ciencitec.com>
References: <38D2F5EE-4D65-497A-8A7F-B7855EE739DE@alfa-redi.org> <20140314165143.1873098klctzyvof@www.ciencitec.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuGZ_CUjxDxJQQZ73BZ+g8g9HXj1S6WbAU0h7qi1eGD_w@mail.gmail.com>

De acuerdo,,,elecciones en ISOC-PERÚ


Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


El día 14 de marzo de 2014, 15:51,  <jfcallo at ciencitec.com> escribió:
> ISOC Peru llama a la Comunidad Internacional, para que se renueve la
> directiva y no se entornille nadie, espoleando el tema de Libertad de
> Expresion. El ejemplo empieza por casa.
> Urgente elecciones en ISOC-PERU.
> Jose F. Callo Romero
> Miembro Fundador de ISOC-PERU
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 17:10:42 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:10:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement
 of March 14
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>

 Dear All,

Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
concerns.

We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
---

IGC Draft Press Release

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates
the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder
policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC
pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome
for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members
and subject to what the following actually entails: "Meet the needs and
expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services"] We
also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this
transition.


While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.


Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.


Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to
be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
Internet's domain name system.



The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140315/bc347f4c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Mar 15 18:11:45 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:11:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>



Hi Anriette,

why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't 
the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?

jeanette



> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>
> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
> used in making these decisions.
>
> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
> is not going to make it easier.
>
> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach, power.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
> internet domain name functions*
>
> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
> United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>
> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
> the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
> not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>
> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
> the openness of the internet.
>
> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>
> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
> on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
> <http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar 15 18:36:43 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:36:43 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwpkcfS_vwceQpoTTkoEU0UVQiJA6Zr+zbF2+J1Km87dbw@mail.gmail.com>

Disagree too


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 15 19:15:47 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 10:15:47 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>

Hi Mawaki,


good start.

I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
To: Internet Governance 
Cc: Deirdre Williams ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14


Dear All,

Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.

We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
---

IGC Draft Press Release

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a] particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition]. 



IP I would leave last bracketed section out



While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning. 



Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders]. 



[Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/9cb10b49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 20:19:55 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 00:19:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-h_xUjxNatSi3y1FDvobkU6-TP75MEows=wZ2Q1ZsGMw@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi Ian,

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Hi Mawaki,
>
>
> good start.
>
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long.
>

I expected that one.
Will wait till Monday morning to reviews the comments, suggestions or
proposed edits before proposing a new draft.
Thank you,

mC


> So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also
> have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/11ac3ea7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Mar 15 20:42:47 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:42:47 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>

Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;

1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my first suggested change below. 

2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary” – administrative perhaps?

3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of certain groups.

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Mawaki Chango ; Internet Governance 
Cc: Deirdre Williams ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

Hi Mawaki,good start.



I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives.

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
To: Internet Governance 
Cc: Deirdre Williams ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14


Dear All,

Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.

We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
---

IGC Draft Press Release

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a] particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition]. 



IP I would leave last bracketed section out



While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning. 



Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders]. 



[Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.



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

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

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



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/ce816ebe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar 15 21:54:36 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 07:24:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <020D475D-0CC4-4184-AA89-EF456BCC796C@hserus.net>

Technical and industry - administrative and operational. With a corresponding stake in policy as well, as policy making can't be disconnected from this, rather unlike proposals and protests that are free not to take technical reality into account.

--srs (iPad)

> On 16-Mar-2014, at 6:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>  
> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my first suggested change below.
>  
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary” – administrative perhaps?
>  
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of certain groups.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Ian Peter
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> To: Mawaki Chango ; Internet Governance
> Cc: Deirdre Williams ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
>  
> Hi Mawaki,good start.
>  
>  
>  
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives.
>  
> From: Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> To: Internet Governance
> Cc: Deirdre Williams ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
>  
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>  
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
>  
> IGC Draft Press Release
>  
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
> 
>  
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a] particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a  proposal to finalize this transition].
> 
>  
> 
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
> 
>  
> 
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that  it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
> 
>  
> 
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders].
> 
>  
> 
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].
> 
>  
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus
> 
> March xx, 2014.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/a4090371/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 21:55:14 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:55:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9=QOZjd_1E9E0LOvwpdmV+b_Yk7zXE1zjBn1HJp6KSHw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ian for clarifying your rationale. That is useful.

I would really suggest, though, to you or anyone who is willing to help to
propose actual wording, for as you all probably know English is not my
first language and often times I have to agonize over wording even more
than it appears afterward in order to make sure I get the full meaning
across. So please don't hesitate; this would be a welcomed relief.

On the other hand, be assured I have no complex... if the correction being
proposed doesn't not seem to acknowledge the original intent or
misunderstands it, I'm able to explain and, if need be, defend the latter
(not because it cannot be changed but to make sure it is changed only in
full knowledge of the intent.)

Thanks.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>
> 1. While happy to endorse "multistakeholder" as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
>
> 2. I wouldn't describe the role of technical organisations as "primary" -
> administrative perhaps?
>
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>  *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>   Hi Mawaki,good start.
>
>
>
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in
> line comments and suggested alternatives.
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>  *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>
>    Dear All,
>
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
>
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
>
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP -2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve
> all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully
> completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject
> to what the following actually entails: "Meet the needs and expectation of
> the global customers and partners of the IANA services"] We also support
> the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global
> Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this
> transition].
>
>
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
>
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP or"private sector led"]
> but is rather open to embrace a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance
> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
> global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found
> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders].
>
>
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
> Internet's domain name system].
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>  ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/069d1e81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 22:11:31 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 02:11:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <020D475D-0CC4-4184-AA89-EF456BCC796C@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
 <020D475D-0CC4-4184-AA89-EF456BCC796C@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8iF5ofyctNV8N0XYPhw-wFh4zN+Z8MxbvxbyF8FLisgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clarify this bit. By "primary" as in "While acknowledging the
primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting
bodies," I mean that those bodies have a hands-on role regarding the
management and coordination of the internet core identifiers or logical
infrastructure (which the IANA functions are first concerned with, and I
guess that's the reason why they are explicitly mentioned/listed in the
NTIA announcement.)

This is not in anyway to suggest that they have a preeminent role in a
normative sense. It is not even a recommendation of a sort; just to say we
have some understanding for why NTIA would particularly or explicitly
emphasize their involvement, but we are here to emphasize the need to
equally include CS/people/users-at-large, etc. You get my point, so if
changes need to be made to the formulation please make suggestions taking
into account the above described intent (although I must admit we may also
get rid of the binary syntactic structure of that sentence altogether and
only emphasize what is most important to us.)

mc.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Technical and industry - administrative and operational. With a
> corresponding stake in policy as well, as policy making can't be
> disconnected from this, rather unlike proposals and protests that are free
> not to take technical reality into account.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 16-Mar-2014, at 6:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>   Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>
> 1. While happy to endorse "multistakeholder" as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
>
> 2. I wouldn't describe the role of technical organisations as "primary" -
> administrative perhaps?
>
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>  *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>   Hi Mawaki,good start.
>
>
>
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in
> line comments and suggested alternatives.
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>  *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>
>    Dear All,
>
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
>
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
>
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP -2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve
> all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully
> completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject
> to what the following actually entails: "Meet the needs and expectation of
> the global customers and partners of the IANA services"] We also support
> the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global
> Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this
> transition].
>
>
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
>
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP or"private sector led"]
> but is rather open to embrace a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance
> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
> global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found
> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders].
>
>
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
> Internet's domain name system].
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/6a0977ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar 15 22:54:53 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:24:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8iF5ofyctNV8N0XYPhw-wFh4zN+Z8MxbvxbyF8FLisgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <020D475D-0CC4-4184-AA89-EF456BCC796C@hserus.net> <CACTo+v8iF5ofyctNV8N0XYPhw-wFh4zN+Z8MxbvxbyF8FLisgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D7BE5799-CDE4-4300-892F-BBD31F189235@hserus.net>

I am sure that was the intent but it would be as you say good to make things clearer, a bit. Thanks for your effort,

--srs (iPad)

> On 16-Mar-2014, at 7:41, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Just to clarify this bit. By "primary" as in "While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies," I mean that those bodies have a hands-on role regarding the management and coordination of the internet core identifiers or logical infrastructure (which the IANA functions are first concerned with, and I guess that's the reason why they are explicitly mentioned/listed in the NTIA announcement.) 
> 
> This is not in anyway to suggest that they have a preeminent role in a normative sense. It is not even a recommendation of a sort; just to say we have some understanding for why NTIA would particularly or explicitly emphasize their involvement, but we are here to emphasize the need to equally include CS/people/users-at-large, etc. You get my point, so if changes need to be made to the formulation please make suggestions taking into account the above described intent (although I must admit we may also get rid of the binary syntactic structure of that sentence altogether and only emphasize what is most important to us.)
> 
> mc. 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Technical and industry - administrative and operational. With a corresponding stake in policy as well, as policy making can't be disconnected from this, rather unlike proposals and protests that are free not to take technical reality into account.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 16-Mar-2014, at 6:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>>>  
>>> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my first suggested change below.
>>>  
>>> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary” – administrative perhaps?
>>>  
>>> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of certain groups.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Ian Peter
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
>>> To: Mawaki Chango ; Internet Governance
>>> Cc: Deirdre Williams ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
>>>  
>>> Hi Mawaki,good start.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives.
>>>  
>>> From: Mawaki Chango
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
>>> To: Internet Governance
>>> Cc: Deirdre Williams ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Dear All,
>>>  
>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>  
>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>> ---
>>>  
>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>  
>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a] particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition].
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call  attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders].
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>> 
>>> March xx, 2014.
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/42ef07ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Sun Mar 16 03:17:02 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:17:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Statement of the European Commission of 15.03.2014:
 Towards further Globalisation of the Internet
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+Z1VORz55z4DP6goRPUrbij8Wvx_g4HOiqesOaGw=qsog@mail.gmail.com>

Of possible interest to the members of this list.

Towards further Globalisation of the Internet

European Commission - STATEMENT/14/70   15/03/2014

Other available languages: none

Share
 Expand
 Back to the search results<http://europa.eu/rapid/search-result.htm?locale=EN>

   -  DOC <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.doc>
   -  PDF <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.pdf>

European Commission

Statement

Brussels, 15 March 2014

Towards further Globalisation of the Internet

Brussels, 15 March 2014 - Vice President Neelie Kroes today warmly welcomed
the announcement of the United States Government to "transition out of the
IANA function", which will allow a more global multi-stakeholder basis for
an important element of governance of the Internet.


"This is an historical step in making Internet governance truly global, and
marks major progress towards the development of a multi-stakeholder model
as advocated in the Commission's recent Communication" Vice-President Kroes
said.


Until now the United States has had the final say in changes to globally
used data on top-level Internet domain names, such as .com or .de.  The
Commission has been pushing for such a move since 2009 and, most recently
in its Communication on Internet Policy and Governance of 12 February 2014,
called for the globalisation of the IANA functions.


The Commission's Communication - like the US announcement - stresses the
need to safeguard in the globalisation process the security and stability
of the Internet, and commits to the multi-stakeholder model of governance.


"It is a very timely announcement, ahead of an important multi-stakeholder
conference in São Paulo on Internet governance principles and the future
evolution of the governance ecosystem" added Vice President Kroes. "The
European Commission will work together with the US and with all global
stakeholders to implement the globalisation of the IANA functions in a
process that is accountable and transparent, and in a manner that secures
the open Internet and that will underpin human rights."

Contacts :

Ryan Heath <Ryan.Heath at ec.europa.eu> (+32 460 750221)- (+32 2 296 17 16)

For the public: Europe Direct by phone 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 or by
e-mail<http://europa.eu/europedirect/write_to_us/>


-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/29249f17/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Mar 16 05:28:21 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 10:28:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <53256EB5.8010702@wzb.eu>

Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further 
suggestion which concerns the following para:

It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ 
is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP 
or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a 
‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.

Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must 
ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can 
dominate the policy process?

Jeanette

Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> – administrative perhaps?
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Hi Mawaki,good start.
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Dear All,
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the
> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
> services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition].
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
> ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is
> rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that
> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
> stakeholders].
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
> the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Sun Mar 16 06:28:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:58:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>


Mawaki

Thanks for this effort.

As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable 
multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we 
have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly 
excludes decision making on public policy issues... This particular 
language should therefore be struck out.

Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and 
complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say that we are eager to know 
more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no 
longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in 
independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the 
issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to 
US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 
'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature.... And that we look forward 
to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care 
of these issues..

Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do 
not have customers, only constituencies and the such...

Thanks, parminder


On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and 
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering 
> the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with 
> same concerns.
>
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
>
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications 
> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to 
> relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet 
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key 
> Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this 
> marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of 
> ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its 
> stewardship.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and 
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable 
> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the 
> Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the 
> reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in 
> the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the 
> above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what 
> the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the 
> global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support 
> the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global 
> Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this 
> transition.
>
>
> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and 
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the 
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and 
> views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet 
> policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model 
> to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, 
> including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the 
> context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make 
> sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean 
> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a 
> ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the 
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global 
> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that 
> actually is global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate 
> responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective 
> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) 
> should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the 
> exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to 
> all Internet stakeholders.
>
>
> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the 
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br 
> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise 
> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition 
> proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and 
> outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current 
> role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name 
> system.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/62379b6c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun Mar 16 07:08:26 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:08:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
Message-ID: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com>

Yes, Jean!




------------
C. A. Afonso

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> 
Date: 16-03-2014  06:28  (GMT-03:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> 
Cc: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14 
 
Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further 
suggestion which concerns the following para:

It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ 
is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP 
or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a 
‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.

Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must 
ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can 
dominate the policy process?

Jeanette

Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> – administrative perhaps?
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Hi Mawaki,good start.
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Dear All,
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the
> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
> services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition].
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
> ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is
> rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that
> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
> stakeholders].
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
> the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/528a3588/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 08:27:31 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:27:31 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com>
References: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtPwod2eXOH1=JeZokPwCJSZNwZz1Y5EQVP8HLjvHb1aaw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki,

Thank you for taking the initiative and putting in the effort. In my
personal view, IGC should be strongly concerned about the policy
making mechanisms of both this change the its future thus this should
be well mentioned.

It is very unclear of how this model will evolve in the future. Will
ICANN continue to be that body that manages the IANA function, what is
the future of IANA then?

Will IANA and ICANN be integrated into one organizational model and
how will this organization be moved out of the US and that brings us
back to the initial discussions on the IGC list about the various
possible models including one where ICANN be located to Geneva and
thereof act as an International organization and go into agreements,
treaty or non-treaty bindings with the participation of various
multilateral or bilateral, civil society, technical community and
private sector organizations and bodies.

It is also important to see how Governments are reacting to this and
the Singapore ICANN Public Meeting will be a good space to see how the
GAC responds or the statements that come out of there.

This is a whole new process and we have to find a way to keep IGC
involved inside out of the present and future of this transition where
IGC also holds ground in all policy development processes of this new
form of Internet Governance of the Domain and Naming Space of the
Internet.

As far as the issue of primary Internet organizations are concerned,
that role has evolved to their present state and the Domain and IP
owners, users, consumers or whatever the human role in the
transactional value of domains be, is very primary and important so
that cannot be left to just mentioning Internet organizations as
primary, the human being or user or consumer is primary and thats who
makes this whole system work and creates the demand for this political
economy to operate.

The new role of ICANN or any for the operation and management of an
internationalized and independent domain name space beyond the control
of any nation requires that stakeholders are clearly mentioned and
brought into such a space on equal footing and grounds. That is not
the case as such.

The present ICANN community development processes do inhibit
participation from across the world and though there are some
productive efforts in place but they are not abundant.

Mawaki, when you say [consideration to the concerns and views of
non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies],
that becomes the version of ICANN itself and a terminology that it
uses to create a crack between the Non-Profit or Non-Private Sector
groups that work consistently to find common grounds to work together
but are subject to hierarchy.

IF we look at the present state of the Board of ICANN, you will find a
great deal of imbalance that I have already mentioned.

The statement needs to be reviewed to represent a collective voice of
IGC and in its own words rather than terminology incorporated from
ICANN lingo.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Yes, Jean!
>
>
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Date: 16-03-2014 06:28 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,Mawaki
> Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> Cc: Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>
> Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further
> suggestion which concerns the following para:
>
> It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder'
> is not reduced to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP
> or"private sector led"] but is rather open to embrace a
> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
> Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must
> ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can
> dominate the policy process?
>
> Jeanette
>
> Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>> 1. While happy to endorse "multistakeholder" as a step forward for these
>> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
>> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
>> first suggested change below.
>> 2. I wouldn't describe the role of technical organisations as "primary"
>> - administrative perhaps?
>> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
>> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
>> certain groups.
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
>> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
>> announcement of March 14
>> Hi Mawaki,good start.
>> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
>> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
>> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
>> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
>> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
>> announcement of March 14
>> Dear All,
>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>> concerns.
>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>> ---
>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
>> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
>> Internet] [IP -2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
>
>> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
>> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
>> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: "Meet the
>> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
>> services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>> proposal to finalize this transition].
>>
>> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>>
>> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
>> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
>> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
>> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
>> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
>> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
>> 'multistakeholder' is not reduced to mean
>> 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP or"private sector led"] but is
>
>> rather open to embrace a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>
>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
>
>> governance institution - with a constituency and a customer base that
>> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
>
>> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
>> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
>> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
>> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
>> stakeholders].
>>
>> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>
>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
>> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
>
>> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
>> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
>> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
>> the coordination of the Internet's domain name system].
>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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



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

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Mar 16 08:28:01 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:28:01 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <532598D1.90103@acm.org>



On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> – administrative perhaps?


I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps 
Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but 
creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible 
is a bit more than administration.

Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many 
ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we 
have nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word 
seem to carry more connotations than essential.

I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the 
notions of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are 
still unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not 
work out the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we 
ought to persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders 
in the process is essential.

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 adiel at afrinic.net  Sun Mar 16 08:47:50 2014
From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 16:47:50 +0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>

I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.

- a.

On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
> 
> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
> 
> Cheers!
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> Disagree,
> 
> Different department.
> 
> j
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
> 
> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
> 
> Louis
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/0747b5c4/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sun Mar 16 09:24:27 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:24:27 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <d9249a23c2284a9f970aeb9ee61a0dcf@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5324435A.6010004@gmail.com> <532443C3.1000907@itforchange.net> <09EFA3EA-EEE2-4010-B643-35F95D02FFB3@istaff.org> <d9249a23c2284a9f970aeb9ee61a0dcf@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <BFBD99A0-E895-44F5-AD9F-4672E89FE233@istaff.org>

On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Furthermore, I would refer people back to the IGP plan, and the call to separate the globalization/reform of the IANA functions from the broader and more difficult reforms that must be made in ICANN's policy making process, domicile, etc. Parminder's comments confuse these two things. 

The existing co-mingling of overall Internet identifier coordination role, DNS policy 
development role, and IANA administration and implementation role (all within ICANN)
does make it difficult at times to keep track of which aspect we are talking about 
at any given moment... 

> Let's do one thing at a time, so that each can be done right. The distinction between ICANN's policy process, its corporate domicile, its contracts with registries, etc., with the globalization of the IANA functions has been reiterated many times on this list. We don't have to change everything about ICANN in one stage. Once the IANA functions are dealt with, a lot of options open up regarding the policy process.

I'd like to explore the various roles just a bit, so I can better understand what is 
really proposed in "the IGP plan".  To do this, I'd like to consider the tasks performed
for the generic case of IANA protocol parameter registries and then for the specific 
case of the DNS root zone registry, as revised per the IGP proposal.  

(I'll spare repeating all of the IETF registry background, but one can refer to for 
<http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/002434.html> for reference)

When the IETF specifies a protocol, there are often associated registries.  To a rough
approximation, the IESG is the policy development body (as it works with the community 
via working groups and approves the registry creation via the "IANA Considerations' 
section of an RFC) and the IAB is the registry authority.  Via the mechanisms in RFC 
6220 and per an MOU with ICANN (RFC 2860), the IAB has arranged for ICANN to perform 
the IANA registry administration and operations tasks.  In this role, IANA receives
requests from third parties to make entries in any IETF registry, and if they conform 
with the established policy for the registry then the entry is made.  This approach
encourages both clarity of registry policy as well as fair and impartial administration 
of the registry itself.  

The IAB also noted that some general-propose registries (DNS names and IP addresses) 
pose "policy issues", and per the MOU with ICANN recognizes that ICANN may have policy
which affect how those registries (such as the DNS root zone) are administered (and  
this is a good thing because the the IANA function contract with NTIA specifically 
calls for the IANA to follow ICANN policy when processing DNS root zone requests...)

With respect to DNS root zone, there is a significant difference being proposed in 
the roles under the IGP proposal, in that you have ICANN-sans-IANA performing policy 
development _and_ policy administration roles, i.e. from reading, it is hard to tell
if your new "DNSA" is only performing the clerical registry operations task, as opposed 
to the actual administration of policy via processing of incoming requests for changes 
from the community -  

  "The DNSA would require a binding contract with ICANN regarding the conditions 
   under which it would agree to implement changes in the root zone or other 
   associated databases to reflect policies emerging from ICANN’s policy development 
   processes. The contract should ensure that the DNSA has no policy authority but 
   merely implements valid requests for additions or deletions emerging from ICANN’s 
   policy process."

>From the above, is the determination of a "valid request" performed first by ICANN
(and the result send to DNSA for processing), or does DNSA receive the "raw" request
and make the determination of validity in accordance with the established policy?
I believe you intended the former: ICANN-sans-IANA would the body which performs 
policy administration and it then sends only clerical direction for registry update 
to the DNSA, but could potentially read the proposal either way.

Thoughts?
/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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Mar 16 10:38:55 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 10:38:55 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <532598D1.90103@acm.org>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>

+1 Avri.  I was thinking "fundamental" might work but I like "essential " better, I think. 
I was wondering if it would be worthwhile also so reiterate the values that are mentioned in the press release, or a broader statement of values.  We need to hang on very strongly to the "free and open" etc. values, it does not go without saying in a multi-stakeholder model. 


Stephanie

On 2014-03-16, at 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
>> – administrative perhaps?
> 
> 
> I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible is a bit more than administration.
> 
> Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we have nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word seem to carry more connotations than essential.
> 
> I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the notions of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are still unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not work out the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we ought to persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders in the process is essential.
> 
> avri
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 16 11:32:12 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:02:12 +0530
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com> <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <A3F41EAA-A055-4B71-AEEA-A48337DB5026@hserus.net>

Agreed

--srs (iPad)

> On 16-Mar-2014, at 18:17, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
> 
> - a.
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>> 
>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> 
>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>> Disagree,
>> 
>> Different department.
>> 
>> j
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>> 
>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>> 
>> Louis
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.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 Mar 16 12:20:41 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:50:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] IBM open letter on government access to data
Message-ID: <144cbb1ebd8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2014/03/open-letter-data.html

Very clear statements here.

Disclaimer : my day job is with IBM but I do not speak for or represent 
them here or anywhere else unless explicitly specified so.



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Mar 16 12:36:14 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:36:14 +0100
Subject: AW: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
References:  <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

1+ Adiel.
 
A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant of a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking, manipulating, spying etc.  The problem is that so far there not enough multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to counter bad things. This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer (which includes the termination of the transition of the IANA function to the network of the multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know that the two lyers are interconnected, but they are two different shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020). 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
An: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement



I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.

- a.

On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>
> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>
> Cheers!
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> Disagree,
>
> Different department.
>
> j
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>
> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>
> Louis
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/> 
>  http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/> 
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Mar 16 12:52:14 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:52:14 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <5325D6BE.9090700@wzb.eu>

If there was a contest for swanky acronyms in the IG cosmos, no doubt 
you would win it Wolfgang!
jeanette



Am 16.03.14 17:36, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> 1+ Adiel.
>
> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the
> Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and
> non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of
> a TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant
> of a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do
> with third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering,
> hacking, manipulating, spying etc.  The problem is that so far there
> not enough multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of
> services can go to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to
> counter bad things. This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should
> discuss what on top of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer
> (which includes the termination of the transition of the IANA
> function to the network of the multistakleholder I* organizations)
> should be done to have multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the
> content/political layer. We know that the two lyers are
> interconnected, but they are two different shoes. New
> multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But
> Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder
> Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan Gesendet:
> So 16.03.2014 13:47 An: Seun Ojedeji Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society
> Internet Governance Caucus - IGC Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance]
> NTIA statement
>
>
>
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to
> dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function
> by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not
> technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>
> - a.
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>>
>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>>
>> Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>> Disagree,
>>
>> Different department.
>>
>> j
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well)
>> <pouzin at well.com> wrote: Hi,
>>
>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet
>> freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion
>> for the show.
>>
>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/> http://pinstand.com
>> <http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com
>> <http://punkcast.com/> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> <http://isoc-ny.org/>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
>> list discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
>> list discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org http://1net-mail.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 dl at panamo.eu  Sun Mar 16 13:05:23 2014
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 18:05:23 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <5325D6BE.9090700@wzb.eu>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5325D6BE.9090700@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5325D9D3.3070706@panamo.eu>

Le 16/03/14 17:52, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> a Multistakeholder
> Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020)
a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap Document 2020 (MINGORO 2020)

MINGOROD, for Jeanette.

;-)

Who speaks for MAXGOROD?

Sorry. Regards and happy day! @+, Dom

/PS for some: think to Novgorod. / /"Gorod" is "town" in Russian./

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/a529f27a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 13:37:31 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:07:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>
	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)


"to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
contradict the ideals of democracy???
​
"consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process, open
for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies
that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The intention
behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but as
unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
lead to politicization of the process. In India the intention to protect
minority interests began with policies of special attention, special laws
and reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and politics and
this move to ensure social justice has also caused some imbalance in a
certain way; In the US, the Government's openness to representation by
Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results in a
situation where the amplified voice of the lobby group wins over the muted
voice or silence of others. Certainly a global process can not create a
situation where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be
achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness of the process.
Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"

Sivasubramanian M



On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> +1 Avri.  I was thinking "fundamental" might work but I like "essential "
> better, I think.
> I was wondering if it would be worthwhile also so reiterate the values
> that are mentioned in the press release, or a broader statement of values.
>  We need to hang on very strongly to the "free and open" etc. values, it
> does not go without saying in a multi-stakeholder model.
>
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2014-03-16, at 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
> >> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> >> – administrative perhaps?
> >
> >
> > I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps
> Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but
> creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible is a
> bit more than administration.
> >
> > Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many
> ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we have
> nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word seem to
> carry more connotations than essential.
> >
> > I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the
> notions of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are still
> unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not work out
> the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we ought to
> persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders in the
> process is essential.
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/70a82975/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sun Mar 16 13:42:42 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 13:42:42 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of	Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <887C5AF0-9EB3-4445-95D1-E3815B9E88AF@istaff.org>

On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:

> At the most basic level, the NTIA is going to assign the IANA Contract to the new organization created by this process ("NewOrg"), so that NewOrg steps into the shoes of the NTIA.

At a _very_ basic level, I agree that NTIA is definitely looking for a proposal 
(to transition the current role played by NTIA) and if that proposal meets with 
their approval, then something will happen...

> Then the question becomes should the IANA Contract be "revised" or "renegotiated" as part of the process to add to, subtract from or modify the privileges and obligations of NewOrg and ICANN?  By what process and who will be involved?  And -- is this question set even on the table? Or is the contract being assigned "as is "?

Given that NTIA's role has been administrative oversight of the IANA function 
performance and consists primarily of reviewing performance reports (which 
anyone can review here: <http://www.iana.org/performance>), it is unclear to
me if the transition of those duties involves any assignment of the existing
contract, ...

> Also, what will NewOrg look like? What form, what domicile, what governance? This is probably the question set more directly asked as a result of the NTIA announcement.

... nor is it clear that an acceptable proposal would need to involve any form
of new organization (i.e. "NewOrg")

Now, if you want to consider some of the other aspects of the NTIA IANA function
contract (e.g. explicit approval of insertion of entries in the root zone), then
we first need to decide what function exactly is being served by that, and then
how to best satisfy that requirement. 

/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 suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 16 13:43:53 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:13:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02CD5AF9-2AF4-4317-AC4C-92366809100E@hserus.net>

Affirmative action which you refer to does have its benefits and its pitfalls, yes.

However I didn't read a call for affirmative action as much as a call for inclusiveness and consensus building in the statement.  Which call I would support 

Perhaps some rewording is in order,

--srs (iPad)

> On 16-Mar-2014, at 23:07, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
> 
> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???
> ​
> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process, open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could lead to politicization of the process. In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> +1 Avri.  I was thinking "fundamental" might work but I like "essential " better, I think.
>> I was wondering if it would be worthwhile also so reiterate the values that are mentioned in the press release, or a broader statement of values.  We need to hang on very strongly to the "free and open" etc. values, it does not go without saying in a multi-stakeholder model.
>> 
>> 
>> Stephanie
>> 
>> On 2014-03-16, at 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
>> >> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
>> >> – administrative perhaps?
>> >
>> >
>> > I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible is a bit more than administration.
>> >
>> > Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we have nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word seem to carry more connotations than essential.
>> >
>> > I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the notions of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are still unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not work out the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we ought to persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders in the process is essential.
>> >
>> > 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/c90f7481/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 13:49:23 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:19:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <02CD5AF9-2AF4-4317-AC4C-92366809100E@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>
	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<02CD5AF9-2AF4-4317-AC4C-92366809100E@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0G8gbnR4qkP2cZDsh7rjfHoHfdK4KknUeF6dWrPMm6+_A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Suresh

Thank you.  I agree that this is not a call for affirmative action, but
could cause to set a pattern in our thinking that could eventually lead to
the situation of a call for affirmative action. If you agree that some
rewording is in order, the wordings could come from your own  reply :  You
mentioned "inclusiveness and consensus building";  We could also use words
like "global", "all", "universal", "impartial"

Thank you.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Affirmative action which you refer to does have its benefits and its
> pitfalls, yes.
>
> However I didn't read a call for affirmative action as much as a call for
> inclusiveness and consensus building in the statement.  Which call I would
> support
>
> Perhaps some rewording is in order,
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 16-Mar-2014, at 23:07, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
> contradict the ideals of democracy???
> ​
> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
> lead to politicization of the process. In India the intention to protect
> minority interests began with policies of special attention, special laws
> and reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and politics and
> this move to ensure social justice has also caused some imbalance in a
> certain way; In the US, the Government's openness to representation by
> Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results in a
> situation where the amplified voice of the lobby group wins over the muted
> voice or silence of others. Certainly a global process can not create a
> situation where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be
> achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness of the process.
> Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> +1 Avri.  I was thinking "fundamental" might work but I like "essential "
>> better, I think.
>> I was wondering if it would be worthwhile also so reiterate the values
>> that are mentioned in the press release, or a broader statement of values.
>>  We need to hang on very strongly to the "free and open" etc. values, it
>> does not go without saying in a multi-stakeholder model.
>>
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On 2014-03-16, at 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
>> >> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
>> >> – administrative perhaps?
>> >
>> >
>> > I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps
>> Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but
>> creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible is a
>> bit more than administration.
>> >
>> > Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many
>> ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we have
>> nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word seem to
>> carry more connotations than essential.
>> >
>> > I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the
>> notions of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are still
>> unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not work out
>> the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we ought to
>> persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders in the
>> process is essential.
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/df60117d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 14:01:25 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:01:25 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>

Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form of
trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the
participating
<http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_S
ingle_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf> "stakeholders"
recognize the connection.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
Balasubramaniam
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog): On
the Wrong Side of Globalization

 

 
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-global
ization/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globali
zation/

THE GREAT DIVIDE<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=Blog
Category&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=B
logs&region=Header>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogC
ategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Bl
ogs&region=Header>

MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM

On the Wrong Side of Globalization

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>

 

Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, but we
should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade proposals in the
works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong side of
globalization.

 

The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the
fabric of the Democratic Party<
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-p
illar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResult
s%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%2
3%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pi
llar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults
%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23
%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,

though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his State of
the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new trade
partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at issue is
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring together 12
countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest free trade area
in the world.

 

Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to the
United States Trade Representative<
<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outline
s-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines
-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,

of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other trade
barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations have been
taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked drafts<
<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html>
https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to guess at the
proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced a bill<
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_wo
uld_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_wou
ld_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>

this

year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track authority,
under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever trade agreement is
put before it, without revisions or amendments.

 

Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and the
history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer the shape
of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real risk that it
will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the
expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan is under consideration
at all is testament to how deeply inequality reverberates through our
economic policies.

 

Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem: our
gross mismanagement of globalization.

 

Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are markedly
different from those made in the decades following World War II, when
negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down on all sides,
trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors in which it had
strengths and as a result, standards of living would rise. Some jobs would
be lost, but new jobs would be created.

 

Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the
world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers," and
the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing
agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that
inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations,
even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers,
consumers, the economy and the environment.

 

What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments
responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'

new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory
harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to
promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by
strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when
corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the
bottom.

 

When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every
country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational
corporations can return to the practices that were common before the Clean
Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972, respectively) and
before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations everywhere may well
agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits.

Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be
good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers --
namely, the rest of us.

 

These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade negotiations
proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are captured by
corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are secret, there
is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks and balances
required to put limits on the negative effects of these agreements.

 

The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.

What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of the
worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an international
tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for alleged diminution
of their potential profits as a result of regulation.

This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this
tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which
have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt
profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay.
In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in
which Western powers successfully demanded that China keep itself open to
opium because they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a
large trade imbalance.

 

Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used
elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing
countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the
evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial.
And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue
could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations
could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in
the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the
United States government -- getting rights as a "foreign"

company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is
not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that
companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on
the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is
strongest.

 

There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the
cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic
drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest
countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers:

thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to
be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent system is
supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with
another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. I've
written<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-r
einforces-inequality/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-re
inforces-inequality/>

before

about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes
that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting
those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.

Trade agreements provide even more

opportunities<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-r
einforces-inequality/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-re
inforces-inequality/>

for

patent abuse.

 

The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents
suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell risky
derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same kind of
crisis that led to the Great Recession.

 

In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP and
agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this support
possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained in
circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.

 

Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early years.
Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the winners can
always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even freer trade) is a
win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on numerous assumptions,
many of which are simply wrong.

 

The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that
workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the economy
was at full employment, so that workers displaced by globalization would
quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which had thrived simply because
foreign competition was kept at bay through tariffs and other trade

restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high level
of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the unemployed
have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there can't be such
complacency.

 

Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but
can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk that
individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected sector
will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the unemployed.

This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts
downward pressure on wages.

 

We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's supposed to

-- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our banks,
more interested in speculation and market manipulation than lending, are not
providing adequate funds to small and medium-size enterprises. But whatever
the reasons, the reality is that these trade agreements do risk increasing
unemployment.

 

One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have mismanaged
globalization. Our economic policies encourage the outsourcing of jobs:

Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into the
United States. So American workers understand that they have to compete with
those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This is one of the
reasons that the real median income of full-time male workers is lower than
it was<
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?
action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%
2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMas
thead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHome
page%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?a
ction=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2
Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMast
head%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomep
age%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>

40

years ago.

 

American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of
circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners could
compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't -- quite the
opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for America to be
competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so will taxes and
expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit to ordinary
citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say, because in the
long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes famously said in
another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In this case, there is
little evidence that the trade agreements will lead to faster or more
profound growth.

 

Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the theory
that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just in the
United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.

 

By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little
respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the
expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a
broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more generally

-- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.

The outcome of that war remains uncertain.

 

In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the
high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous
increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array of
policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has emphasized
that inequality should be the country's top priority, every new policy,
program or law should be examined from the perspective of its impact on
inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in important ways to
this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is even possible, though
far from assured, that gross domestic product as conventionally measured
will increase. But the well-being of ordinary citizens is likely to take a
hit.

 

And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:

Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP would

-- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the
bottom.

_______________________________________________

A2k mailing list

 <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org> A2k at lists.keionline.org

 <http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org>
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/7fcf1885/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Mar 16 15:23:10 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:23:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New
 York Times (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>

Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with 
the Opium wars is pretty cool.

Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their 
profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations 
think of the free flow of information.

jeanette



Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form
> of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the
> participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection
> <http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf>.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
> Balasubramaniam
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog):
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/
>
> THE GREAT
> DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header>
>
> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
>
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> By JOSEPH E.
> STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
>
> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over,
> but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade
> proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong
> side of globalization.
>
> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the
> fabric of the Democratic
> Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,
>
> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his
> State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new
> trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at
> issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring
> together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest
> free trade area in the world.
>
> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to
> the United States Trade
> Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,
>
> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other
> trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations
> have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked
> drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to
> guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced
> a
> bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>
>
> this
>
> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track
> authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever
> trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>
> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and
> the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer
> the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real
> risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and
> global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan
> is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality
> reverberates through our economic policies.
>
> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem:
> our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>
> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are
> markedly different from those made in the decades following World War
> II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down
> on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors
> in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would
> rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>
> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the
> world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers,"
> and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing
> agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain
> that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the
> regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to
> protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>
> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments
> responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'
>
> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory
> harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to
> promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization
> by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But
> when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a
> race to the bottom.
>
> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every
> country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational
> corporations can return to the practices that were common before the
> Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972,
> respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations
> everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good
> for corporate profits.
>
> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would
> be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big
> losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>
> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade
> negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are
> captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are
> secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks
> and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these
> agreements.
>
> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.
>
> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of
> the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an
> international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for
> alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
>
> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this
> tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which
> have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt
> profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and
> Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the
> Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China
> keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting
> what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>
> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used
> elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing
> countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the
> evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and
> controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims,
> the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well.
> American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some
> Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that
> subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government --
> getting rights as a "foreign"
>
> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this
> is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence
> that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different
> countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the
> government is strongest.
>
> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower
> the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of
> generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In
> the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into
> corporate coffers:
>
> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have
> to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent
> system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual
> protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more
> available. I've
> written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> before
>
> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the
> genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up
> rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.
>
> Trade agreements provide even more
>
> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> for
>
> patent abuse.
>
> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents
> suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell
> risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same
> kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>
> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP
> and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this
> support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained
> in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>
> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early
> years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the
> winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even
> freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on
> numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>
> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that
> workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the
> economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by
> globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which
> had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through
> tariffs and other trade
>
> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high
> level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the
> unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there
> can't be such complacency.
>
> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but
> can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk
> that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected
> sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the
> unemployed.
>
> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts
> downward pressure on wages.
>
> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's supposed to
>
> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our
> banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than
> lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size
> enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade
> agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>
> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have
> mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the
> outsourcing of jobs:
>
> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into
> the United States. So American workers understand that they have to
> compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This
> is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time male
> workers is lower than it
> was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
>
> 40
>
> years ago.
>
> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of
> circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners
> could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't --
> quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for
> America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so
> will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit
> to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say,
> because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes
> famously said in another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In
> this case, there is little evidence that the trade agreements will lead
> to faster or more profound growth.
>
> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the
> theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just
> in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>
> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the
> Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little
> respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the
> expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a
> broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more generally
>
> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.
>
> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>
> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the
> high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous
> increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array
> of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has
> emphasized that inequality should be the country's top priority, every
> new policy, program or law should be examined from the perspective of
> its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in
> important ways to this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is
> even possible, though far from assured, that gross domestic product as
> conventionally measured will increase. But the well-being of ordinary
> citizens is likely to take a hit.
>
> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:
>
> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP would
>
> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the
> bottom.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> A2k mailing list
>
> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto: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 kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 15:26:17 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:26:17 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
 <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>

 Hello,


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello
>
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
> contradict the ideals of democracy???
>

Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
contradict..."


>
> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
> lead to politicization of the process.
>

This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests
or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses
in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy'
precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.

Thanks,
Mawaki



> In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies
> of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities
> in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has
> also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's
> openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least
> occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
> group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global
> process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but
> this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
> of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/c2477402/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 15:49:50 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:49:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New
 York Times (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com> <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <00b501cf4150$e56def50$b049cdf0$@gmail.com>

Hmmm... the "Internet Freedom" campaign?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:23 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization

Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with the Opium wars is pretty cool.

Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations think of the free flow of information.

jeanette



Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a 
> form of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of 
> the participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection 
> <http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf>.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru 
> Balasubramaniam
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog):
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-g
> lobalization/
>
> THE GREAT
> DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/
> ?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollectio
> n=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header>
>
> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
>
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> By JOSEPH E.
> STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz
> />
>
> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, 
> but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade 
> proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the 
> wrong side of globalization.
>
> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the 
> fabric of the Democratic 
> Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts
> -doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&re
> gion=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fs
> earch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,
>
> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his 
> State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new 
> trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at 
> issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring 
> together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the 
> largest free trade area in the world.
>
> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to 
> the United States Trade 
> Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2
> 011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,
>
> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other 
> trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations 
> have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked 
> drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to 
> guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress 
> introduced a 
> bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiatio
> ns_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.ht
> ml>
>
> this
>
> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track 
> authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever 
> trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>
> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and 
> the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer 
> the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real 
> risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and 
> global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a 
> plan is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply 
> inequality reverberates through our economic policies.
>
> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem:
> our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>
> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are 
> markedly different from those made in the decades following World War 
> II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came 
> down on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the 
> sectors in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living 
> would rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>
> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around 
> the world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers,"
> and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing 
> agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations 
> complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most 
> of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a 
> reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>
> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments 
> responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'
>
> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after 
> regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an 
> innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get 
> regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest 
> standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, 
> what they really mean is a race to the bottom.
>
> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every 
> country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational 
> corporations can return to the practices that were common before the 
> Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972,
> respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations 
> everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be 
> good for corporate profits.
>
> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would 
> be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big 
> losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>
> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade 
> negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries 
> are captured by corporate and financial interests. And when 
> negotiations are secret, there is no way that the democratic process 
> can exert the checks and balances required to put limits on the 
> negative effects of these agreements.
>
> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.
>
> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of 
> the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an 
> international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also 
> for alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
>
> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried 
> this tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking 
> regulations, which have won accolades from the World Health 
> Organization, unfairly hurt profits, violating a bilateral trade 
> treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade 
> agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in which Western powers 
> successfully demanded that China keep itself open to opium because 
> they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>
> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being 
> used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. 
> Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these 
> provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return 
> is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most 
> obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well.
> American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some 
> Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that 
> subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government 
> -- getting rights as a "foreign"
>
> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, 
> this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some 
> evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into 
> different countries on the basis of where their legal position in 
> relation to the government is strongest.
>
> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower 
> the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of 
> generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. 
> In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into 
> corporate coffers:
>
> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research 
> have to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the 
> patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of 
> intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to 
> knowledge more available. I've 
> written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectu
> al-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> before
>
> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the 
> genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended 
> up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.
>
> Trade agreements provide even more
>
> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-inte
> llectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> for
>
> patent abuse.
>
> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents 
> suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell 
> risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same 
> kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>
> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP 
> and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this 
> support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has 
> remained in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>
> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early 
> years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the 
> winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even 
> freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on 
> numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>
> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed 
> that workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that 
> the economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by 
> globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which 
> had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through 
> tariffs and other trade
>
> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high 
> level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the 
> unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there 
> can't be such complacency.
>
> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job 
> but can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real 
> risk that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a 
> protected sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast 
> ranks of the unemployed.
>
> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts 
> downward pressure on wages.
>
> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's 
> supposed to
>
> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our 
> banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than 
> lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size 
> enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade 
> agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>
> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have 
> mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the 
> outsourcing of jobs:
>
> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back 
> into the United States. So American workers understand that they have 
> to compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. 
> This is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time 
> male workers is lower than it 
> was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conund
> rum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&
> url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3
> Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit
> %26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
>
> 40
>
> years ago.
>
> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of 
> circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners 
> could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't -- 
> quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for 
> America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so 
> will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of 
> benefit to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, 
> they say, because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John 
> Maynard Keynes famously said in another context, "in the long run we 
> are all dead." In this case, there is little evidence that the trade 
> agreements will lead to faster or more profound growth.
>
> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the 
> theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not 
> just in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>
> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, 
> the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a 
> little respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching 
> corporations at the expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this 
> skirmish. But there is a broader war to ensure that trade policy -- 
> and globalization more generally
>
> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.
>
> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>
> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that 
> the high level of inequality in the United States today, and its 
> enormous increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result 
> of an array of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president 
> himself has emphasized that inequality should be the country's top 
> priority, every new policy, program or law should be examined from the 
> perspective of its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have 
> contributed in important ways to this inequality. Corporations may 
> profit, and it is even possible, though far from assured, that gross 
> domestic product as conventionally measured will increase. But the 
> well-being of ordinary citizens is likely to take a hit.
>
> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:
>
> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP 
> would
>
> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at 
> the bottom.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> A2k mailing list
>
> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto: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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Mar 16 15:52:14 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:52:14 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <A1BC4A18DBED4A5487A8A7F97140605E@Toshiba>

yes, I agree with Avri and Stephanie -

instead of primary, fundamental, essential, or even important would work 
better than my original suggestion.

Also agree with Stephanie's suggestion to reiterate the values.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria
Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to 
the NTIA announcement of March 14

+1 Avri.  I was thinking "fundamental" might work but I like "essential " 
better, I think.
I was wondering if it would be worthwhile also so reiterate the values that 
are mentioned in the press release, or a broader statement of values.  We 
need to hang on very strongly to the "free and open" etc. values, it does 
not go without saying in a multi-stakeholder model.


Stephanie

On 2014-03-16, at 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
>
> On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
>> – administrative perhaps?
>
>
> I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps 
> Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but 
> creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible is 
> a bit more than administration.
>
> Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many 
> ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we 
> have nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word seem 
> to carry more connotations than essential.
>
> I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the notions 
> of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are still 
> unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not work out 
> the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we ought to 
> persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders in the 
> process is essential.
>
> 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








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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu  Sun Mar 16 16:08:23 2014
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:08:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] CW comments on IGP IANA proposal: ICANN and Global
 Internet Governance: Singapore 21 March 2014
In-Reply-To: <F4AABB7E-564C-4003-B8E2-4D41F10F6BF0@gmail.com>
References: <ABDDBDE2-D54C-4056-9E11-5612BF6DF9D9@uzh.ch> <F4AABB7E-564C-4003-B8E2-4D41F10F6BF0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8F59504D-8C5E-4308-A876-970E60E022E5@christopherwilkinson.eu>

Dear Bill, Dear Milton:

With a view to your conference in Singapore on Friday, allow me to forward my comments on the IGP proposal regarding IANA (attached) for the attention of the meeting.

While I agree, together with NTIA and the European Commission, that ICANN should develop a multistakeholder proposal, I would suggest that the IGP approach contains significant drawbacks, and that an alternative will have to be found.

Best regards

Christopher



On 13 Mar 2014, at 19:05, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
>> If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.
> 
> We are looking forward to the conference next Friday in Singapore.  I just wanted to pass along a few brief updates:
> 
> There have been several additions to the panelists since I sent out the notice below two weeks ago, with one more pending and soon to be resolved, http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/programme/
> 
> The program page above now has a link under each panel to  NETmundial and other contribution of relevance.  If one follows those links, you go to a page of background materials, some which are particularly relevant for the particular panels and could be drawn on in their respective conversations.
> 
> There are still some free seats in the large room ICANN reserved, so if you have any colleagues who will be coming early to Singapore and could be interested, please do direct them to the the conference page and registration page.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.
>> 
>> ------
>> 
>> "ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond"
>> 
>> A conference to be held on Friday 21 March 2014 at the ICANN 49 meeting venue, the Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore, in the Olivia Room, from 10:00 to 18:00.
>> 
>> Organized by the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, with the generous support of ICANN.
>> 
>> Logistical information, conference registration (important!) and the program are now online at http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/
>> 
>> We very much want this to be an inclusive cross-community dialogue, so we hope people will consider attending, either in person or remotely, and please do share this with potentially interested colleagues.  We are compiling some background materials related to the session topics for addition to the web site, and personal/organizational written inputs would be very much welcome.
>> 
>> 
>> Overview of the meeting
>> 
>> 10:00-10:15     Welcome and Overview 
>> 10:15-10:45     Update on the Sao Paulo Meeting
>> 10:45-12:00     Panel 1 - Setting the Scene: Overview of Recent Agenda-Setting Initiatives
>> 12:00-13:00     Lunch
>> 13:00-14:15     Panel 2 - Internet Governance Principles
>> 14:15-15:45     Panel 3 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Globalization
>> 15:45-16:00     Coffee break
>> 16:00-17:30     Panel 4 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Institutional Innovation
>> 17:15-17:45     Keynote Assessment by Larry Strickling,
>> 			Asst. Secretary of Commerce, Government of the United States
>> 17:45-18:00     Concluding Observations
>> 18:00-19:30     Reception with Fadi Chehadé, CEO of ICANN
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org
>> ***********************************************
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/9591dabd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CW comments on IGP IANA proosal Rev 2.1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 103576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/9591dabd/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/9591dabd/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 16:51:28 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:51:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>

 Parminder,

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Mawaki
>
> Thanks for this effort.
>
> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
> decision making on public policy issues...
>

I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should
be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal
or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the
meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
context.) Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have
been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may
evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not
necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and
experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one
or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?

I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?

If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to
say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?


> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>
> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know
> more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no
> longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>

Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
other stakeholders.

Mawaki


>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in
> a manner that takes care of these issues..
>
> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
>  On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
>    Dear All,
>
>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
>
>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>  ---
>
>  IGC Draft Press Release
>
>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition.
>
>
>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>
>
>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
> Internet's domain name system.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/0568dc13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 16:54:31 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:54:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtPwod2eXOH1=JeZokPwCJSZNwZz1Y5EQVP8HLjvHb1aaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com> <CAHuaJtPwod2eXOH1=JeZokPwCJSZNwZz1Y5EQVP8HLjvHb1aaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v92qYkGA6r8=+odSAzxhFN6CJVb7sAbXZT+B36GrXo=4g@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi Fouad,
Thank you for these enlightening comments. That was helpful.

Mawaki


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> Thank you for taking the initiative and putting in the effort. In my
> personal view, IGC should be strongly concerned about the policy
> making mechanisms of both this change the its future thus this should
> be well mentioned.
>
> It is very unclear of how this model will evolve in the future. Will
> ICANN continue to be that body that manages the IANA function, what is
> the future of IANA then?
>
> Will IANA and ICANN be integrated into one organizational model and
> how will this organization be moved out of the US and that brings us
> back to the initial discussions on the IGC list about the various
> possible models including one where ICANN be located to Geneva and
> thereof act as an International organization and go into agreements,
> treaty or non-treaty bindings with the participation of various
> multilateral or bilateral, civil society, technical community and
> private sector organizations and bodies.
>
> It is also important to see how Governments are reacting to this and
> the Singapore ICANN Public Meeting will be a good space to see how the
> GAC responds or the statements that come out of there.
>
> This is a whole new process and we have to find a way to keep IGC
> involved inside out of the present and future of this transition where
> IGC also holds ground in all policy development processes of this new
> form of Internet Governance of the Domain and Naming Space of the
> Internet.
>
> As far as the issue of primary Internet organizations are concerned,
> that role has evolved to their present state and the Domain and IP
> owners, users, consumers or whatever the human role in the
> transactional value of domains be, is very primary and important so
> that cannot be left to just mentioning Internet organizations as
> primary, the human being or user or consumer is primary and thats who
> makes this whole system work and creates the demand for this political
> economy to operate.
>
> The new role of ICANN or any for the operation and management of an
> internationalized and independent domain name space beyond the control
> of any nation requires that stakeholders are clearly mentioned and
> brought into such a space on equal footing and grounds. That is not
> the case as such.
>
> The present ICANN community development processes do inhibit
> participation from across the world and though there are some
> productive efforts in place but they are not abundant.
>
> Mawaki, when you say [consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies],
> that becomes the version of ICANN itself and a terminology that it
> uses to create a crack between the Non-Profit or Non-Private Sector
> groups that work consistently to find common grounds to work together
> but are subject to hierarchy.
>
> IF we look at the present state of the Board of ICANN, you will find a
> great deal of imbalance that I have already mentioned.
>
> The statement needs to be reviewed to represent a collective voice of
> IGC and in its own words rather than terminology incorporated from
> ICANN lingo.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/8845173f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 17:04:50 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:34:50 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>
	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mawaki


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hello,
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that
>>> it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration
>>> to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>>
>>
>> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>> ​
>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>> ​​
>> ​​
>> ​​
>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>> the ideals of democracy???
>>
>
> Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
> contradict..."
>

​No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not". ​ The
rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that the
premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
democracy???"

Thank you
Sivasubramanian M


>
>>
>> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
>> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
>> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>
>
> This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests
> or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses
> in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy'
> precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>
> Thanks,
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>> In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies
>> of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities
>> in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has
>> also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's
>> openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least
>> occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>> group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global
>> process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but
>> this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>> of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/27905030/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 17:14:18 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:14:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgxZPCT=bBfL=hcHZuzXhtEKasq0_EG6JNSFgR=+zb58Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgxZPCT=bBfL=hcHZuzXhtEKasq0_EG6JNSFgR=+zb58Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi1Te2GQzhEWjWS4vtqGzM01PvcN7JxF9wW9CAtBcEQsQ@mail.gmail.com>

 removed BB from cc, as we all should unless the IGC and BB want to do
a joint announcement>



>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Thanks for this effort.
>>
>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues... This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server,
>
>
>


We already know that ICANN is only "in control" of L root-server.

VRSN stays as root admin, this announcement doesn't change that.


>
>
>
>>
>> and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and
>
>
>


 this announcement means that it CAN shift domicile.

>
>
>
>>
>> (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>
>
>
>


We know that an intergov replacement is not an option.


>
>
>
>>
>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies
>
>
>

some of them have both.

For the record, I have an issue with this sentence:

 It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
'multistakeholder' is not reduced to mean
'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.

 as it is too negative.

 I support JH's change.





-- 
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 dl at panamo.eu  Sun Mar 16 17:38:59 2014
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:38:59 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <DE51B221-A937-4C75-8D75-ADD4DD57086D@shinkuro.com>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>	<1145A1ED-DF87-4A03-8DC8-637BF6B375A9@shinkuro.com>	<5325F337.2060700@acm.org> <DE51B221-A937-4C75-8D75-ADD4DD57086D@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu>

Le 16/03/14 21:28, Steve Crocker a écrit :
> [...] The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter, rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest qualities.[...]
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your very interesting and clarifying technical comments.

But about this precise point of trust, a large part of the world could
consider that US law is good *for US*.
Because of a bunch of recent laws that extend extraterritoriality and
allow surveillance.
And because precisely, the high technical qualities require US lawyers...
And because the USA are far and strange for a lot of people.
And because other countries have also good laws.

All these points feed mistrust.
Exactly as a mirror: some US laws are fed of mistrust. And some
practices shew abuses.
Some of American great analysts themselves say it: the US have been
making mistakes at least since 10 years.

So, IMHO, the first question could be: how could we build again some trust?
I think that, perhaps, chosing one common goal could help. But in order
to operate, it must be a bit out of the Internet management game.
And it must include civil society. Not only negociators for trade treaties.
That was the sense of my group's contribution to NetMundial.

Sorry if I disturbed. I saw some light and I entered the house ;-)

@+, best regards, Dominique

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 16 17:53:28 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:53:28 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
 <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>

 Dear Sivasubramanian,

Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of
democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former)
that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of
Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something
called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to
a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does
"multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and
always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that
suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting
from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.

Mawaki

p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Mawaki
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that
>>>> it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration
>>>> to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>>>
>>>
>>> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>>> the ideals of democracy???
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
>> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
>> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
>> contradict..."
>>
>
> No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not". The
> rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that the
> premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
> model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
> democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
> democracy???"
>
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
>>> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
>>> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>>> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests
>> or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses
>> in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy'
>> precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
>> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
>> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
>> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
>> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
>> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
>> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
>> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
>> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>> In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies
>>> of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities
>>> in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has
>>> also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's
>>> openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least
>>> occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>>> group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global
>>> process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but
>>> this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>>> of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/a52cc3af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sun Mar 16 18:34:05 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 18:34:05 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org>

Given this difference, why are the Brazilian government, the I*, and the 
European Commission insisting on treating US mass surveillance as a 
trigger for calling for IANA reform?

The Brazilian government lumped those two topics together for 
NetMundial, with ample encouragement from 1Net and ICANN.  The I* 
brought those two issues together in the Montevideo Declaration.  The 
European Commission in a recent press release noted:

"Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into 
question the stewardship of the US when it comes to Internet Governance. 
So given the US-centric model of Internet Governance currently in place, 
it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model 
while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open 
multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet."

I can't quite grok why.

~ Pranesh

Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 
[2014-03-16 12:36:14]:
> 1+ Adiel.
>
> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant of a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking, manipulating, spying etc.  The problem is that so far there not enough multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to counter bad things. This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer (which includes the termination of the transition of the IANA function to the network of the multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know that the two lyers are interconnec
ted, but they are two different shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
> Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
> An: Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
>
>
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>
> - a.
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>>
>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>>
>> Cheers!
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>> Disagree,
>>
>> Different department.
>>
>> j
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>>
>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>>   http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/>
>>   VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/c2b07a12/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dl at panamo.eu  Sun Mar 16 19:41:52 2014
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:41:52 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <532636C0.7030306@panamo.eu>

Dear Gregory,
The Snowden leaks seem above all to provide you an argument against all
governments and public bodies.
So, what could be your conclusion? To forget every democratic
representation and leave citizens alone facing the great global companies?

I doubt it could be your wish, is it?

@+, cheers, Dominique




Le 17/03/14 00:22, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :
> The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to climb on and demand this transition.  Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on.  Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
>
> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability" when it comes to such things.  This allows the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without sin."
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:34 PM
> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Adiel Akplogan; Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
> Given this difference, why are the Brazilian government, the I*, and the European Commission insisting on treating US mass surveillance as a trigger for calling for IANA reform?
>
> The Brazilian government lumped those two topics together for NetMundial, with ample encouragement from 1Net and ICANN.  The I* brought those two issues together in the Montevideo Declaration.  The European Commission in a recent press release noted:
>
> "Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the US when it comes to Internet Governance.
> So given the US-centric model of Internet Governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet."
>
> I can't quite grok why.
>
> ~ Pranesh
>
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> [2014-03-16 12:36:14]:
>> 1+ Adiel.
>>
>> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the
>> Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and
>> non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a
>> TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant of
>> a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with
>> third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking,
>> manipulating, spying etc.  The problem is that so far there not enough
>> multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go
>> to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to counter bad things.
>> This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top
>> of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer (which includes the
>> termination of the transition of the IANA function to the network of
>> the multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have
>> multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know
>> that the two lyers are interconnec
> ted, but they are two different shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
>> Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
>> An: Seun Ojedeji
>> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>>
>> - a.
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>>>
>>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>
>>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>>> Disagree,
>>>
>>> Different department.
>>>
>>> j
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>>>
>>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>>> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>>>   http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/>
>>>   VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                                 * * *
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/f239f71e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 16 20:39:23 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:09:23 +0530
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <1145A1ED-DF87-4A03-8DC8-637BF6B375A9@shinkuro.com> <5325F337.2060700@acm.org> <DE51B221-A937-4C75-8D75-ADD4DD57086D@shinkuro.com> <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <5DD9B4EB-0EFB-4AAB-BDC2-4007248195C2@hserus.net>

French law was still using the guillotine to execute people till as late as 1977. Just saying. And as for surveillance .. rather tough to teach the DGSE (or rather its predecessor SDECE) anything much, as a quick google of the term 'barbouze' might show.

Do you have any reason OTHER than the nsa's activities to make that claim?  Or claim that any other nation would be better at this? And do remember that line in the bible about motes versus beams in the eye, casting the first stone etc.

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 3:08, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> 
> Le 16/03/14 21:28, Steve Crocker a écrit :
>> [...] The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter, rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest qualities.[...]
> Dear Steve,
> Thanks for your very interesting and clarifying technical comments.
> 
> But about this precise point of trust, a large part of the world could
> consider that US law is good *for US*.
> Because of a bunch of recent laws that extend extraterritoriality and
> allow surveillance.
> And because precisely, the high technical qualities require US lawyers...
> And because the USA are far and strange for a lot of people.
> And because other countries have also good laws.
> 
> All these points feed mistrust.
> Exactly as a mirror: some US laws are fed of mistrust. And some
> practices shew abuses.
> Some of American great analysts themselves say it: the US have been
> making mistakes at least since 10 years.
> 
> So, IMHO, the first question could be: how could we build again some trust?
> I think that, perhaps, chosing one common goal could help. But in order
> to operate, it must be a bit out of the Internet management game.
> And it must include civil society. Not only negociators for trade treaties.
> That was the sense of my group's contribution to NetMundial.
> 
> Sorry if I disturbed. I saw some light and I entered the house ;-)
> 
> @+, best regards, Dominique
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 21:38:30 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 01:38:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
 <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8aggp5e2U1BOh4xkDjDwY9_wMebd1G1=EyC7CLaD6G=w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find the current draft below. Please make sure to propose actual
wording if you're not happy with any passage of this text. I might not be
able at this point to digest lengthy comments and capture the gist into a
sentence or two that will satisfy you.

Also, I wanted to note that this may not be an actual "press release" but
an IGC statement. Why do you folks think? Have we done press releases
before, and does that suit the current situation?
Thanks,

Mawaki


On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
functions.



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates
the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet
domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that
is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly acknowledges with
satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all
stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent arrangements
completing the transition toward the privatization of the DNS
administration.



Supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and
the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal,
the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the
openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously
improving not only on its security but also on its safety for all users
around the globe.



Whereas the Caucus recognizes that the structures that develop protocols
and set technical standards for the Internet play and will continue to play
an essential role, we also note that it is equally crucial for the future
arrangements to be inclusive of, and give effective consideration to, the
concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society
organizations across the world, in developed as well as in developing
regions.



Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
that it is meant to be inclusive, bottom-up and consensus driven and, as
such, it enhances democracy by seeking further participation from all
people potentially impacted by its decision outcomes. It is our constant
concern to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced to mean
'anti-intergovernmental' or 'private sector led' but is rather positively
open to embrace and actualize a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.



Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current role,
there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.



The Internet Governance Caucus
March xx, 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/80840f91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu  Sun Mar 16 21:58:37 2014
From: dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:58:37 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <5DD9B4EB-0EFB-4AAB-BDC2-4007248195C2@hserus.net>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <1145A1ED-DF87-4A03-8DC8-637BF6B375A9@shinkuro.com> <5325F337.2060700@acm.org> <DE51B221-A937-4C75-8D75-ADD4DD57086D@shinkuro.com> <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu> <5DD9B4EB-0EFB-4AAB-BDC2-4007248195C2@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <532656CD.6030508@ies-france.eu>

Le 17/03/14 01:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

Yes, Suresh, but French law stopped death penalty, now. For a long.

BTW, I live just near the place where the first tries of guillotine were
made, with animals, during the French Revolution.
At that time, it was a big progress in the way of killing without
barbary and with respect of equality :-)


    > /Just saying. And as for surveillance .. rather tough to teach the
    DGSE (or rather its predecessor SDECE) anything much, as a quick
    google of the term 'barbouze' might show./


You're perfectly right. But French laws about spying and interceptions
are in discussions in France just now.

All countries have to clean one's home about all human rights.
Perhaps we could compete aiming to improve all laws, instead of
justifying bad laws with others.

BUT about the US problem, the question is:

1. *dangerous* coexistence of bad laws + Internet control + global IT
companies,
2. need of a more *balanced* power in Internet management and in
Internet economic system,
3. need of *diversity*: complexity sciences demonstrate that lack of
diversity lead to collapse,
4. we are at a crossroad about *choice of civilization*. We must keep
open mixing several models of societies, selecting best parts of several
ones.


@+, best regards, Dominique

>
> Do you have any reason OTHER than the nsa's activities to make that claim?  Or claim that any other nation would be better at this? And do remember that line in the bible about motes versus beams in the eye, casting the first stone etc.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 3:08, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Le 16/03/14 21:28, Steve Crocker a écrit :
>>> [...] The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter, rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest qualities.[...]
>> Dear Steve,
>> Thanks for your very interesting and clarifying technical comments.
>>
>> But about this precise point of trust, a large part of the world could
>> consider that US law is good *for US*.
>> Because of a bunch of recent laws that extend extraterritoriality and
>> allow surveillance.
>> And because precisely, the high technical qualities require US lawyers...
>> And because the USA are far and strange for a lot of people.
>> And because other countries have also good laws.
>>
>> All these points feed mistrust.
>> Exactly as a mirror: some US laws are fed of mistrust. And some
>> practices shew abuses.
>> Some of American great analysts themselves say it: the US have been
>> making mistakes at least since 10 years.
>>
>> So, IMHO, the first question could be: how could we build again some trust?
>> I think that, perhaps, chosing one common goal could help. But in order
>> to operate, it must be a bit out of the Internet management game.
>> And it must include civil society. Not only negociators for trade treaties.
>> That was the sense of my group's contribution to NetMundial.
>>
>> Sorry if I disturbed. I saw some light and I entered the house ;-)
>>
>> @+, best regards, Dominique
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/caa9e66c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 16 22:02:42 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:32:42 +0530
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <532656CD.6030508@ies-france.eu>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
 <1145A1ED-DF87-4A03-8DC8-637BF6B375A9@shinkuro.com>
 <5325F337.2060700@acm.org>
 <DE51B221-A937-4C75-8D75-ADD4DD57086D@shinkuro.com>
 <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu>
 <5DD9B4EB-0EFB-4AAB-BDC2-4007248195C2@hserus.net>
 <532656CD.6030508@ies-france.eu>
Message-ID: <144cdc6b278.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I won't argue about the need for diversity and openness. Extending your 
argument to tar all US (or French  for that matter) law with the same brush 
isn't quite on though.


On 17 March 2014 7:28:46 am Dominique Lacroix 
<dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu> wrote:

> Le 17/03/14 01:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
> Yes, Suresh, but French law stopped death penalty, now. For a long.
>
> BTW, I live just near the place where the first tries of guillotine were
> made, with animals, during the French Revolution.
> At that time, it was a big progress in the way of killing without
> barbary and with respect of equality :-)
>
>
>     > /Just saying. And as for surveillance .. rather tough to teach the
>     DGSE (or rather its predecessor SDECE) anything much, as a quick
>     google of the term 'barbouze' might show./
>
>
> You're perfectly right. But French laws about spying and interceptions
> are in discussions in France just now.
>
> All countries have to clean one's home about all human rights.
> Perhaps we could compete aiming to improve all laws, instead of
> justifying bad laws with others.
>
> BUT about the US problem, the question is:
>
> 1. *dangerous* coexistence of bad laws + Internet control + global IT
> companies,
> 2. need of a more *balanced* power in Internet management and in
> Internet economic system,
> 3. need of *diversity*: complexity sciences demonstrate that lack of
> diversity lead to collapse,
> 4. we are at a crossroad about *choice of civilization*. We must keep
> open mixing several models of societies, selecting best parts of several
> ones.
>
>
> @+, best regards, Dominique
>
> >
> > Do you have any reason OTHER than the nsa's activities to make that 
> claim?  Or claim that any other nation would be better at this? And do 
> remember that line in the bible about motes versus beams in the eye, 
> casting the first stone etc.
> >
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> >> On 17-Mar-2014, at 3:08, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 16/03/14 21:28, Steve Crocker a écrit :
> >>> [...] The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is 
> the specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter, 
> rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest 
> qualities.[...]
> >> Dear Steve,
> >> Thanks for your very interesting and clarifying technical comments.
> >>
> >> But about this precise point of trust, a large part of the world could
> >> consider that US law is good *for US*.
> >> Because of a bunch of recent laws that extend extraterritoriality and
> >> allow surveillance.
> >> And because precisely, the high technical qualities require US lawyers...
> >> And because the USA are far and strange for a lot of people.
> >> And because other countries have also good laws.
> >>
> >> All these points feed mistrust.
> >> Exactly as a mirror: some US laws are fed of mistrust. And some
> >> practices shew abuses.
> >> Some of American great analysts themselves say it: the US have been
> >> making mistakes at least since 10 years.
> >>
> >> So, IMHO, the first question could be: how could we build again some trust?
> >> I think that, perhaps, chosing one common goal could help. But in order
> >> to operate, it must be a bit out of the Internet management game.
> >> And it must include civil society. Not only negociators for trade treaties.
> >> That was the sense of my group's contribution to NetMundial.
> >>
> >> Sorry if I disturbed. I saw some light and I entered the house ;-)
> >>
> >> @+, best regards, Dominique
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/b69bc8cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dl at panamo.eu  Sun Mar 16 22:24:31 2014
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:24:31 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04BF4@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <532636C0.7030306@panamo.eu> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04BF4@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <53265CDF.9010302@panamo.eu>

Le 17/03/14 02:25, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :

    /> Just vague hand-waving about “trust.”/

But trust is the very main social link. In commerce as well as in politics.
That's why we are in the jam.

That's not vague. It's a major subject of social sciences!

> /That’s a rather bizarre conclusion to make from my statements. //The
> Snowden leaks provide me with nothing./
>
Gregory, sorry if I was not clear enough. I was questionning you, not
concluding for you.

My point here is that civil society needs to keep a balanced place
between governments and business, because civil liberties may be
endangered by both.


So, I observed that some commentators take argument of the Snowden leaks
to attack all the governments about surveillance.

As if surveillance was not coming also from great companies...

@+, best, Dominique

 

Le 17/03/14 02:25, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :
> That’s a rather bizarre conclusion to make from my statements.  The Snowden leaks provide me with nothing.
>
> The issue is not whether there are problems related to surveillance.  The issue is whether there is a concrete connection between how the surveillance occurred and the US role related to the IANA function or to ICANN generally.  I have not seen a concrete connection demonstrated yet.  Just vague hand-waving about “trust.”  So I’ll continue to suggest that the “Snowden Revelations” were an excuse, rather than a reason, to call for “globalization” of Internet Governance.
>
> The other point I was making is that the US is not alone in conducting surveillance, for better or worse.  Even the “Snowden Revelations” revealed surveillance by other governments, alone or in concert, and the sharing of intelligence between nations.  If we had all the facts about global surveillance in front of us, the picture would certainly be far different than the one available to us today.  Especially about who you can “trust.”
>
> As far as your questions go, they are so far off anything I said, I don’t see the need to answer.  I will say that on the one hand, I don’t have any love of surveillance (my grandparents left Poland one step ahead of the secret police due to trade union activities and my father had his phone tapped and mail opened due to antiwar activities), but it’s too simplistic to say that surveillance is per se evil (I watched the World Trade Center towers come down in front of my eyes from my office window).
>
> And I really don’t see what “great global companies” have to do with any of this.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> From: Dominique Lacroix [mailto:dl at panamo.eu]
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:42 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
> Dear Gregory,
> The Snowden leaks seem above all to provide you an argument against all governments and public bodies.
> So, what could be your conclusion? To forget every democratic representation and leave citizens alone facing the great global companies?
>
> I doubt it could be your wish, is it?
>
> @+, cheers, Dominique
>
>
>
>
> Le 17/03/14 00:22, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :
>
> The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to climb on and demand this transition.  Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on.  Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
>
>
>
> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability" when it comes to such things.  This allows the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without sin."
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:34 PM
>
> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Adiel Akplogan; Seun Ojedeji
>
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
>
>
> Given this difference, why are the Brazilian government, the I*, and the European Commission insisting on treating US mass surveillance as a trigger for calling for IANA reform?
>
>
>
> The Brazilian government lumped those two topics together for NetMundial, with ample encouragement from 1Net and ICANN.  The I* brought those two issues together in the Montevideo Declaration.  The European Commission in a recent press release noted:
>
>
>
> "Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the US when it comes to Internet Governance.
>
> So given the US-centric model of Internet Governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet."
>
>
>
> I can't quite grok why.
>
>
>
> ~ Pranesh
>
>
>
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de><mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
> [2014-03-16 12:36:14]:
>
> 1+ Adiel.
>
>
>
> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the
>
> Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and
>
> non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a
>
> TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant of
>
> a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with
>
> third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking,
>
> manipulating, spying etc.  The problem is that so far there not enough
>
> multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go
>
> to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to counter bad things.
>
> This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top
>
> of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer (which includes the
>
> termination of the transition of the IANA function to the network of
>
> the multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have
>
> multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know
>
> that the two lyers are interconnec
>
> ted, but they are two different shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
>
> Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
>
> An: Seun Ojedeji
>
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>
> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>
>
>
> - a.
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>
>
>
> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
>
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
>
>
> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com><mailto:joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
> Disagree,
>
>
>
> Different department.
>
>
>
> j
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com><mailto:pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>
>
>
> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>
>
>
> Louis
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>
> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/><http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>
>   http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/><http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/><http://punkcast.com/>
>
>   VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/><http://isoc-ny.org/>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Pranesh Prakash
>
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>
> -------------------
>
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
>
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                                 * * *
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>   So I’ll continue to suggest that the “Snowden Revelations” were an excuse, rather than a reason, to call for “globalization” of Internet Governance.
>
> The other point I was making is that the US is not alone in conducting surveillance, for better or worse.  Even the “Snowden Revelations” revealed surveillance by other governments, alone or in concert, and the sharing of intelligence between nations.  If we had all the facts about global surveillance in front of us, the picture would certainly be far different than the one available to us today.  Especially about who you can “trust.”
>
> As far as your questions go, they are so far off anything I said, I don’t see the need to answer.  I will say that on the one hand, I don’t have any love of surveillance (my grandparents left Poland one step ahead of the secret police due to trade union activities and my father had his phone tapped and mail opened due to antiwar activities), but it’s too simplistic to say that surveillance is per se evil (I watched the World Trade Center towers come down in front of my eyes from my office window).
>
> And I really don’t see what “great global companies” have to do with any of this.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> From: Dominique Lacroix [mailto:dl at panamo.eu]
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:42 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
> Dear Gregory,
> The Snowden leaks seem above all to provide you an argument against all governments and public bodies.
> So, what could be your conclusion? To forget every democratic representation and leave citizens alone facing the great global companies?
>
> I doubt it could be your wish, is it?
>
> @+, cheers, Dominique
>
>
>
>
> Le 17/03/14 00:22, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :
>
> The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to climb on and demand this transition.  Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on.  Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
>
>
>
> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability" when it comes to such things.  This allows the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without sin."
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:34 PM
>
> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Adiel Akplogan; Seun Ojedeji
>
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
>
>
> Given this difference, why are the Brazilian government, the I*, and the European Commission insisting on treating US mass surveillance as a trigger for calling for IANA reform?
>
>
>
> The Brazilian government lumped those two topics together for NetMundial, with ample encouragement from 1Net and ICANN.  The I* brought those two issues together in the Montevideo Declaration.  The European Commission in a recent press release noted:
>
>
>
> "Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the US when it comes to Internet Governance.
>
> So given the US-centric model of Internet Governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet."
>
>
>
> I can't quite grok why.
>
>
>
> ~ Pranesh
>
>
>
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de><mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
> [2014-03-16 12:36:14]:
>
> 1+ Adiel.
>
>
>
> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the
>
> Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and
>
> non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a
>
> TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant of
>
> a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with
>
> third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking,
>
> manipulating, spying etc.  The problem is that so far there not enough
>
> multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go
>
> to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to counter bad things.
>
> This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top
>
> of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer (which includes the
>
> termination of the transition of the IANA function to the network of
>
> the multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have
>
> multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know
>
> that the two lyers are interconnec
>
> ted, but they are two different shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
>
> Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
>
> An: Seun Ojedeji
>
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>
> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>
>
>
> - a.
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>
>
>
> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
>
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
>
>
> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com><mailto:joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
> Disagree,
>
>
>
> Different department.
>
>
>
> j
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com><mailto:pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>
>
>
> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>
>
>
> Louis
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>
> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/><http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>
>   http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/><http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/><http://punkcast.com/>
>
>   VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/><http://isoc-ny.org/>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Pranesh Prakash
>
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>
> -------------------
>
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
>
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                                 * * *
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/ab5d3e3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Sun Mar 16 23:13:25 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:43:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] The web we want
Message-ID: <53266855.7030907@ITforChange.net>

The World Wide Web turned 25 last week. After the invention of the 
printing press, this is the most defining development in the world of 
communication. Its impact is still growing and its full potential yet to 
be realised despite the many changes it has brought in its wake....

....Tim Berners-Lee maintains that there are a few principles which 
allowed the web, as a platform, to support such growth. “By design, the 
Web is universal, royalty-free, open and decentralised. Thousands of 
people worked together to build the early Web in an amazing, 
non-national spirit of collaboration; tens of thousands more invented 
the applications and services that make it so useful to us today, and 
there is still room for each one of us to create new things on and 
through the Web,” he declared.... in March 1989, a British scientist, 
Tim Berners-Lee, working at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear 
Research, submitted a rather simple sounding paper titled “Information 
Management: A Proposal” that gave birth to the World Wide Web. And how 
does he view his creation? Why did he not opt for a proprietary system 
where he would have minted billions? Why did he advocate an online 
“Magna Carta” to protect and enshrine the independence of the medium he 
created and the rights of its users worldwide? His answers capture his 
concerns. In an interview to the BBC he said: “As to making lots of 
money? If I’d made it something which was a proprietary system then it 
would not have taken off. The only reason it took off is because people 
were prepared to invest in it because it’s open and free…

....The forthcoming “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of 
Internet Governance,” to be held in São Paulo, Brazil, in April is a 
crucial development. In India, last month, a new coalition — Just Net 
Coalition (JNC) — was formed to provide inputs for this meeting. Its 
main arguments are: “a set of principles that should underpin the 
emergence of an Internet that advances human rights and social justice 
globally, and the reconfiguration of Internet governance into a truly 
democratic space. *These principles are based on a recognition that the 
Internet has become a vitally important social infrastructure that 
profoundly impacts our societies; and on the observation that 
opportunities for the many to participate in the very real benefits of 
the Internet, and to fully realise its enormous potential, are being 
thwarted by growing control of the Internet by politically, economically 
and socially dominant actors. Existing governance arrangements for the 
global Internet suffer from a lack of democracy; an absence of 
legitimacy, accountability and transparency; excessive corporate 
influence and regulatory capture; and too few opportunities for 
effective participation by people, especially from developing countries.”**
*
read the full article at 
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/Readers-Editor/the-web-we-want/article5792955.ece
read the JNC principles document at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-a-just-and-equitable-internet-for-all/110

regards
Guru

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/f543c8ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Mar 17 01:46:55 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:46:55 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>


On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.

	Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way. 
	Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search information, and how they use it, and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a detailed briefing in 2012).
	But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will be gamed by search engine optimization services, thus rendering the service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the cultural commons, but they have revealed their basic technique
	I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by their development, AND the utility of the service to the general public, seems to push that principle too far. 
	Cheers

		David
	
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
> 
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country. 
> 
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
> 
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.” 
> 
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. 
> 
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
> 
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/9d294c72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/9d294c72/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 17 01:52:35 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:22:35 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53268DA3.9040606@ITforChange.net>

well said, Mawaki
regards
Guru

On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Dear Sivasubramanian,
>
> Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of 
> democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the 
> former) that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most 
> recent case of Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can 
> happen to something called democracy and formally designed as such, 
> you bet that can happen to a multistakeholder governance structure. 
> After all, what does "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you 
> think it will necessarily and always function as a better democracy? 
> Is there anything in the word that suggests so? No. Can stakeholders 
> turn out to form a smoke screen diverting from the interests of the 
> larger public or the people? You bet they can.
>
> Mawaki
>
> p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M 
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Mawaki
>
>
>     On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango
>     <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hello,
>
>
>         On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M
>         <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hello
>
>                 IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model
>                 to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals
>                 of democracy, including due consideration to the
>                 rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
>             "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>             contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>             Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next
>             step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room
>             for this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???
>
>
>         Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to
>         yourself since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that
>         sentence by re-typing it instead of just reading the original
>         one correctly. It reads: "does NOT contradict..."
>
>
>     No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does
>     not". The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was
>     making is that the premise underlying the condition was not valid.
>     So I asked "Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the
>     next step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for
>     this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???"
>
>     Thank you
>     Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>             "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a
>             Global process, open for participation from all
>             stake-holders, from every nation, the policies that would
>             emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>             intention behind this thought about the "rights"
>             of minorities might be noble, but as unintended
>             consequences, this idea of special attention could
>             lead to politicization of the process.
>
>
>         This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with
>         special interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put
>         the following in parentheses in front of the word
>         'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy' precisely to
>         signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>         minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about
>         inclusiveness and consensus building. I was trying to avoid
>         limiting the reference to democracy to its most common
>         instances or simplistic understanding whereby the winner
>         (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>         whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests
>         of the minority into consideration while governing (think of
>         Egypt and the democratically elected President Morsi.) More
>         precisely (and completely unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I
>         borrow the notion of "rights of minorities" from Hannah Arendt
>         in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I hear you and will
>         try to reconsider the wording.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Mawaki
>
>             In India the intention to protect minority interests began
>             with policies of special attention, special laws and
>             reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and
>             politics and this move to ensure social justice has also
>             caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the
>             Government's openness to representation by Special
>             Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results
>             in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>             group wins over the muted voice or silence of others.
>             Certainly a global process can not create a situation
>             where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be
>             achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>             of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we
>             could say "all"
>
>             Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>     India +91 99524 03099 <tel:%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/48c08ed6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 03:07:20 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:37:20 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <53268DA3.9040606@ITforChange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>
	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53268DA3.9040606@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0Hak+ETXtHCm5z_jKNZiLGe5i0V01xsgDTr=BtPkjhSRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The revised draft expresses the opinion and good intentions of the IGC much
better. However some finer points:

the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the
> openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously
> improving not only on its security but also on its safety for all users
> around the globe.


Instead of "security but also on its safety" we could say, "security of
Internet at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
users around the globe",  ( 'safety' already forms part of 'security' ,
Civil Liberties are of greater concern ! )


 across the world, in developed as well as in developing regions.


"across the world" already includes 'developed' and 'developing' countries.
If developing countries are to be seated equally, why do we insist on
separation ?



> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
> that it is meant to be inclusive, bottom-up and consensus driven and, as
> such, it enhances democracy by seeking further participation from all
> people potentially impacted by its decision outcomes. It is our constant
> concern to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-intergovernmental’ or ‘private sector led’ but is rather positively
> open to embrace and actualize a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.



The Internet Governance Caucus supports the multi-stakeholder policy making
model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances
democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world
potentially impacted by its policy decision outcomes. With faith we express
hope in the multi-stakeholder process,  which could be defined and
acknowledged as model different and clearly distinct from the
"inter-governmental" or "private sector led" models, but rather as a more
complete model, an inclusive model that positively embraces and actualizes
participation by all stakeholders from around the world for the benefit of
all the people of the world


( This change is suggested because the sentence "to make sure the term
...." could be misread to imply an accusation that term multi-stakeholder
is already or is being reduced to mean 'anti-intergovernmental' or 'private
sector led'.  I felt that IGC could welcome the current development with
more positive wording. This is an initial statement as a positive note, it
is intended to be a broad statement, so even a reference to any of IGC's
concerns could be broad and positive )



Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role,
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.


(Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.

Sivasubramanian M


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  well said, Mawaki
> regards
> Guru
>
>
> On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>    Dear Sivasubramanian,
>
>  Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of
> democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former)
> that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of
> Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something
> called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to
> a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does
> "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and
> always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that
> suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting
> from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>  p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Dear Mawaki
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>      Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hello
>>>>
>>>>  IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
>>>>> that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due
>>>>> consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet
>>>>> policy)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>>>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>>>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>>>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>>>> the ideals of democracy???
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
>>> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
>>> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
>>> contradict..."
>>>
>>
>>   No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not".
>> The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that
>> the premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
>> model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
>> democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
>> democracy???"
>>
>>  Thank you
>>  Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global
>>>> process, open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation,
>>>> the policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced.
>>>> The intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>>>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>>>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special
>>> interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in
>>> parentheses in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet
>>> policy' precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>>> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
>>> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
>>> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
>>> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>>> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
>>> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
>>> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
>>> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
>>> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
>>> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  In India the intention to protect minority interests began with
>>>> policies of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for
>>>> minorities in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social
>>>> justice has also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the
>>>> Government's openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby
>>>> groups, at least occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified
>>>> voice of the lobby group wins over the muted voice or silence of others.
>>>> Certainly a global process can not create a situation where minorities
>>>> would be neglected, but this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not
>>>> complicate the goodness of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities"
>>>> we could say "all"
>>>>
>>>>  Sivasubramanian M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> India +91 99524 03099 <%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/bc6880e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Mar 17 04:19:26 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:19:26 +0800
Subject: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca> <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8E380D18-5175-4A1F-9E5B-4EDFEFB1F4C0@difference.com.au>


On 15 Mar 2014, at 12:11 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
>> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
>> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there is no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.
> 
> What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a public or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though provided privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of many considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public good as times change.

	Parminder, the use of economic terms with quite specific definitions in an informal way that has no connection to the real definition like this is not helpful. You use here the terms public good and social good as if they are synonyms, and they are not. 

> Prior to the industrial revolution, education was considered a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very exclusive privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills transferred within occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial revolution, many changes took place in social structures, in structure of family, work force and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see as seen as a kind of public good, and then as  a human right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
> 
> Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a vis the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element of this transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms that mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a whole sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general social networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of natural monopolies - a fact that is proven.

	I know of no such proof. I'd be interested to see it. None of the areas you describe seem to be monopolies - there are certainly multiple services for knowledge organising, instant media, social networking etc. 
	Power law style concentration among a few major players, yes, but natural monopolies is a different story. 

> All this present a very new situation, and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public interest of the need and degree of regulation of such platforms.

	Certainly it is reasonable to assess the need and degree of regulation of a category of services. It is, of course, possible that the result of that consideration may be 'no' or 'not much needed'. 
	Though, FWIW, I'm not in that camp - I welcome the increased involvement of regulators in changes to major services that might substantially effect privacy, for example. That is very different from considering them a public good (which I think is just sloppy terminology) or a social good (which would imply public provision of the service). 

> Also, whether some of these services also need to be provided as public goods, or at least proactive public support (including with funds)  given for building local and/ or non-profit alternatives.

	Sure. But that is a matter for individual states to provide, not a matter for global regulatory bodies. 

> But the least that can certainly be said is that a completely unregulated commercial offering of these platforms, as huge global monopolies, and largely escaping regulation because of their global nature, coupled with extra-ordinary economic (and increasingly, political) might, is not not a sustainable situation. We can accept it now and take remedial measures, or do it after considerable social damage is done.
> 
> (In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )
> 
> All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have to visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show the political openness to do so.

	Certainly new types of services invite us to consider their public policy implications. 

> Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position is well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.

	You are currently convincing me that your position is couched in the language of economics, but the argument is a poor one economically and  uses those terms too imprecisely or incorrectly to be very coherent. 

	I'm also very much convinced that Guru's call for making public all algorithms used is certainly not well thought out, and if it is an example of the application of a broader theory, it does that theory no credit. 

	Regards 

		David
> 
> regards
> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
>> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
>> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
>> risk and will.
>> 
>> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
>> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
>> can demand consumer and other rights.
>> 
>> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
>> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
>> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
>> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>> 
>> IMHO
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Guru
>>> 
>>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>> 
>>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>>> the country.
>>> 
>>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>>> nearly $5 billion.
>>> 
>>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>>> users and good for competition.”
>>> 
>>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>> 
>>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>> 
>>> source -
>>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/0cc0717e/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 04:28:46 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:28:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org> <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>

Dear Jeanette

What I meant was that should now focus much more on how the transition
should take place, and what we want to transition to, rather than just
making a convincing argument that the transition should happen.

This is probably just a subtle difference, as the NTIA announcement is
not a huge surprise. But there is still a big difference between civil
society having clear proposals for how we think these functions should
be managed, and by whom, and based on which principles as opposed to
just emphasising that we we want the status quo to change.

We might also want to differentiate between general principles for IG,
and specific principles for DNS and root zone management... but I need
to think about that more...and also think in a more differentiated way
about further evolution of the IG eccosystem.  Different types of
decisions and coordination need not be made in the same way,  or in the
same places. We always say that the system is distributed, and some of
us say that is a good thing. I think having the US oversight issues out
of the way makes it possible for us to spend more time taking about what
replaces it.

Civil society tends to lump all its concerns together, which is often
not very helpful. If we want to get concrete outputs from NetMundial we
need to propose solutions and new models which are achievable and
creative. This is not so easy. But there are a few on the table. If we
can get consensus, more or less, on those before the event it will make
us much more influential.

But I guess I am simply stating the obvious.

Anriette




On 16/03/2014 00:11, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't
> the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
>> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
>> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>>
>> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
>> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
>> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
>> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
>> used in making these decisions.
>>
>> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
>> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
>> is not going to make it easier.
>>
>> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
>> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
>> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
>> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
>> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
>> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
>> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
>> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach,
>> power.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
>> internet domain name functions*
>>
>> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
>> United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
>> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
>> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>>
>>
>> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
>> the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
>> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
>> not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
>> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>>
>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
>> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
>> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
>> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
>> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
>> the openness of the internet.
>>
>> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
>> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
>> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
>> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
>> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
>> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
>> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
>> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
>> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
>> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>>
>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
>> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
>> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
>> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
>> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
>> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
>> on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
>> <http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/1b70d5a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 05:18:55 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:18:55 -0300
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com> <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <49246D6A-79C0-4012-A716-77871984247C@gmail.com>

As if power was unidimensional and single faceted. And as we had never seen any sort of abuse on that domain as well. Kudos for all those who forget cases such as  .XXX, .PS and all the complaints made by Sudan at WCIT.

Regards, Diego

--
Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel
Sent from mobile device

> Em 16/03/2014, às 09:47, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> escreveu:
> 
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
> 
> - a.
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>> 
>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> 
>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>> Disagree,
>> 
>> Different department.
>> 
>> j
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>> 
>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>> 
>> Louis
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/b9029fbf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 17 06:59:15 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:29:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New
 York Times (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com> <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5326D583.3030302@itforchange.net>


On Monday 17 March 2014 12:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with 
> the Opium wars is pretty cool.
>
> Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their 
> profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations 
> think of the free flow of information.

Yes, but maybe even the present generations can start thinking, like 
what is the US 'Internet freedom' agenda i about, and how a new global 
political system of elite co-option going by the name of MSism has to do 
with global economic extraction, as for instance Aspen Institute report 
so intricately weaves MSism into the idea of one global digital economy...

parminder
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
>> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form
>> of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the
>> participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection
>> <http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf>. 
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
>> Balasubramaniam
>> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
>> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
>> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog):
>> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>>
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/ 
>>
>>
>> THE GREAT
>> DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header> 
>>
>>
>> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
>>
>> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>>
>> By JOSEPH E.
>> STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
>>
>> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over,
>> but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade
>> proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong
>> side of globalization.
>>
>> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the
>> fabric of the Democratic
>> Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>, 
>>
>>
>> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his
>> State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new
>> trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at
>> issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring
>> together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest
>> free trade area in the world.
>>
>> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to
>> the United States Trade
>> Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>, 
>>
>>
>> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other
>> trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations
>> have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked
>> drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to
>> guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced
>> a
>> bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html> 
>>
>>
>> this
>>
>> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track
>> authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever
>> trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>>
>> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and
>> the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer
>> the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real
>> risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and
>> global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan
>> is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality
>> reverberates through our economic policies.
>>
>> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem:
>> our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>>
>> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are
>> markedly different from those made in the decades following World War
>> II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down
>> on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors
>> in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would
>> rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>>
>> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the
>> world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers,"
>> and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing
>> agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain
>> that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the
>> regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to
>> protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>>
>> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments
>> responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade 
>> agreements'
>>
>> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory
>> harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to
>> promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization
>> by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But
>> when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a
>> race to the bottom.
>>
>> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every
>> country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational
>> corporations can return to the practices that were common before the
>> Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972,
>> respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations
>> everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good
>> for corporate profits.
>>
>> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would
>> be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big
>> losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>>
>> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade
>> negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are
>> captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are
>> secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks
>> and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these
>> agreements.
>>
>> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the 
>> TPP.
>>
>> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of
>> the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an
>> international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for
>> alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
>>
>> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this
>> tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which
>> have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt
>> profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and
>> Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the
>> Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China
>> keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting
>> what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>>
>> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used
>> elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing
>> countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the
>> evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and
>> controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims,
>> the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well.
>> American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some
>> Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that
>> subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government --
>> getting rights as a "foreign"
>>
>> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this
>> is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence
>> that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different
>> countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the
>> government is strongest.
>>
>> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower
>> the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of
>> generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In
>> the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into
>> corporate coffers:
>>
>> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have
>> to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent
>> system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual
>> protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more
>> available. I've
>> written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/> 
>>
>>
>> before
>>
>> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the
>> genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up
>> rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered 
>> unnecessarily.
>>
>> Trade agreements provide even more
>>
>> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/> 
>>
>>
>> for
>>
>> patent abuse.
>>
>> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents
>> suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell
>> risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same
>> kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>>
>> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP
>> and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this
>> support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained
>> in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>>
>> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early
>> years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the
>> winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even
>> freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on
>> numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>>
>> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that
>> workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the
>> economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by
>> globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which
>> had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through
>> tariffs and other trade
>>
>> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high
>> level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the
>> unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there
>> can't be such complacency.
>>
>> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but
>> can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk
>> that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected
>> sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the
>> unemployed.
>>
>> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts
>> downward pressure on wages.
>>
>> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's 
>> supposed to
>>
>> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our
>> banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than
>> lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size
>> enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade
>> agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>>
>> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have
>> mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the
>> outsourcing of jobs:
>>
>> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into
>> the United States. So American workers understand that they have to
>> compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This
>> is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time male
>> workers is lower than it
>> was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1> 
>>
>>
>> 40
>>
>> years ago.
>>
>> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of
>> circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners
>> could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't --
>> quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for
>> America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so
>> will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit
>> to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say,
>> because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes
>> famously said in another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In
>> this case, there is little evidence that the trade agreements will lead
>> to faster or more profound growth.
>>
>> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the
>> theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just
>> in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>>
>> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the
>> Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little
>> respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the
>> expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a
>> broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more 
>> generally
>>
>> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most 
>> Americans.
>>
>> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>>
>> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the
>> high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous
>> increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array
>> of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has
>> emphasized that inequality should be the country's top priority, every
>> new policy, program or law should be examined from the perspective of
>> its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in
>> important ways to this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is
>> even possible, though far from assured, that gross domestic product as
>> conventionally measured will increase. But the well-being of ordinary
>> citizens is likely to take a hit.
>>
>> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly 
>> emphasized:
>>
>> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the 
>> TPP would
>>
>> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the
>> bottom.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> A2k mailing list
>>
>> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto: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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 07:03:24 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:03:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement
 of March 14
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh0jc+r2FB8Q1One==jgfoE-MnWaNPXmiuPWAigJSfLEw@mail.gmail.com>

<cc list trimmed to governance only>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The revised draft expresses the opinion and good intentions of the IGC much
> better. However some finer points:
>
>> the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the
>> openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously
>> improving not only on its security but also on its safety for all users
>> around the globe.
>
>
> Instead of "security but also on its safety" we could say, "security of
> Internet at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
> users around the globe",  ( 'safety' already forms part of 'security' ,
> Civil Liberties are of greater concern ! )

I support this change

>
>
>>  across the world, in developed as well as in developing regions.
>
>
> "across the world" already includes 'developed' and 'developing' countries.
> If developing countries are to be seated equally, why do we insist on
> separation ?


I support this change

>
>
>>
>> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
>> that it is meant to be inclusive, bottom-up and consensus driven and, as
>> such, it enhances democracy by seeking further participation from all people
>> potentially impacted by its decision outcomes. It is our constant concern to
>> make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced to mean
>> 'anti-intergovernmental' or 'private sector led' but is rather positively
>> open to embrace and actualize a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus supports the multi-stakeholder policy making
> model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances
> democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world
> potentially impacted by its policy decision outcomes. With faith we express
> hope in the multi-stakeholder process,  which could be defined and
> acknowledged as model different and clearly distinct from the
> "inter-governmental" or "private sector led" models, but rather as a more
> complete model, an inclusive model that positively embraces and actualizes
> participation by all stakeholders from around the world for the benefit of
> all the people of the world
>
>
> ( This change is suggested because the sentence "to make sure the term ...."
> could be misread to imply an accusation that term multi-stakeholder is
> already or is being reduced to mean 'anti-intergovernmental' or 'private
> sector led'.  I felt that IGC could welcome the current development with
> more positive wording. This is an initial statement as a positive note, it
> is intended to be a broad statement, so even a reference to any of IGC's
> concerns could be broad and positive )


I support this change


-- 
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  Mon Mar 17 07:25:04 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:55:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>


On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     Mawaki
>
>     Thanks for this effort.
>
>     As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like
>     'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very
>     problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant
>     here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy
>     issues...
>
>
> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues 
> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever 
> their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common 
> understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we 
> use it in this Ig context.)

Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of 
us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...

Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, 
nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can 
have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this 
role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their 
collectives through some formal political process or formations, how 
much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a 
different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position 
if needed.

While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think 
that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a 
business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone 
coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making 
actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.

parminder

PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and 
associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.


> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government 
> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so 
> in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? 
> And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not 
> necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and 
> experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just 
> one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?
>
> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public 
> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really 
> enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But 
> why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's 
> your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>
> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of 
> the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm 
> afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this 
> list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go 
> back there again?
>
>     This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>
>     Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision
>     and complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say that we are
>     eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means
>     that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations
>     with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone
>     server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of
>     incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such
>     and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN'
>     and if so, of what nature....
>
>
> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened 
> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a 
> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could 
> be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow 
> (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours 
> principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop 
> a transition proposal which should include the details of what will 
> follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test 
> they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can 
> only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our 
> participation and that of all other stakeholders.
>
> Mawaki
>
>     And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of
>     ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>
>     Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance
>     institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the
>     such...
>
>     Thanks, parminder
>
>
>     On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>     Dear All,
>>
>>     Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration
>>     and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted
>>     considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer
>>     organization with same concerns.
>>
>>     We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>     ---
>>
>>     IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>>     On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National
>>     Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>     announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has
>>     played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>>     and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.
>>      As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>>     the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>>     privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>
>>     The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>     appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>>     multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the
>>     Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the
>>     reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders
>>     in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully
>>     completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members
>>     and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the
>>     needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>>     IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward
>>     by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the
>>     formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>
>>
>>     While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations
>>     and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call
>>     attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to
>>     the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial
>>     stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the
>>     multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does
>>     not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due
>>     consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
>>     Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure
>>     the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
>>     ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace
>>     a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>
>>
>>     Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing
>>     the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly
>>     global governance institution – with a constituency and a
>>     customer base that actually is global. Related to that and more
>>     broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that
>>     while achieving effective accountability such institution (to
>>     emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one
>>     national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be
>>     equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>     Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming
>>     NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet
>>     Governance(www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be
>>     held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>>     consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions
>>     made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as
>>     regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the
>>     coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>
>>     The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>>     March xx, 2014.
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/caefb9e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 07:31:49 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:31:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org> <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu> <5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5326DD25.7020403@apc.org>

Also.. just adding more to this.

The other 'agenda' challenge is that already surveillance seems to have
moved into the background. Probably because NetMundial submissions asked
us to respond on principles, and roadmap for future evolution of IG
ecosystem.

With this transition on the table we can go into the 'future evolution'
into more detail, but  what about coming up with mechanisms for
addressing mass surveillance?

Anriette


On 17/03/2014 10:28, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Jeanette
>
> What I meant was that should now focus much more on how the transition
> should take place, and what we want to transition to, rather than just
> making a convincing argument that the transition should happen.
>
> This is probably just a subtle difference, as the NTIA announcement is
> not a huge surprise. But there is still a big difference between civil
> society having clear proposals for how we think these functions should
> be managed, and by whom, and based on which principles as opposed to
> just emphasising that we we want the status quo to change.
>
> We might also want to differentiate between general principles for IG,
> and specific principles for DNS and root zone management... but I need
> to think about that more...and also think in a more differentiated way
> about further evolution of the IG eccosystem.  Different types of
> decisions and coordination need not be made in the same way,  or in
> the same places. We always say that the system is distributed, and
> some of us say that is a good thing. I think having the US oversight
> issues out of the way makes it possible for us to spend more time
> taking about what replaces it.
>
> Civil society tends to lump all its concerns together, which is often
> not very helpful. If we want to get concrete outputs from NetMundial
> we need to propose solutions and new models which are achievable and
> creative. This is not so easy. But there are a few on the table. If we
> can get consensus, more or less, on those before the event it will
> make us much more influential.
>
> But I guess I am simply stating the obvious.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 16/03/2014 00:11, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Anriette,
>>
>> why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't
>> the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
>>> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
>>> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>>>
>>> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
>>> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
>>> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
>>> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
>>> used in making these decisions.
>>>
>>> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
>>> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
>>> is not going to make it easier.
>>>
>>> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
>>> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
>>> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
>>> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
>>> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
>>> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
>>> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
>>> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach,
>>> power.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
>>> internet domain name functions*
>>>
>>> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
>>> United States Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>>> Information Administration (NTIA) of its 'intent to transition key
>>> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder
>>> community
>>> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>>>
>>>
>>> NTIA's responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
>>> the "historic steward" of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
>>> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
>>> not been a particularly "hands-on" role, has been cause for concern and
>>> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>>>
>>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
>>> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
>>> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
>>> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
>>> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
>>> the openness of the internet.
>>>
>>> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
>>> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive
>>> participation of
>>> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting
>>> are
>>> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
>>> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
>>> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
>>> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in
>>> the
>>> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
>>> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
>>> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>>>
>>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>>> and
>>> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
>>> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
>>> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
>>> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
>>> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
>>> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global
>>> Meeting
>>> on the Future of Internet Governance - www.netmundial.br
>>> <http://www.netmundial.br/> - to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/6f627567/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 07:40:17 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:10:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>

Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.

Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>> Parminder,
>> 
>> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mawaki
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this effort. 
>>> 
>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
>> 
>> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.)
> 
> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
> 
> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
> 
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
> 
> 
>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?  
>> 
>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>> 
>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>  
>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>> 
>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>> 
>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders.  
>> 
>> Mawaki
>>  
>>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>> 
>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 
>>> 
>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>> 
>>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>> 
>>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship. 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global. Related to that and                                                     more broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> 
>>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/99a54fcd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 17 08:37:34 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:07:34 +0530
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
 Policymaking Body
In-Reply-To: <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C048C7@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>	<1145A1ED-DF87-4A03-8DC8-637BF6B375A9@shinkuro.com>	<5325F337.2060700@acm.org> <DE51B221-A937-4C75-8D75-ADD4DD57086D@shinkuro.com> <532619F3.4070103@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <5326EC8E.2050905@itforchange.net>



> Le 16/03/14 21:28, Steve Crocker a écrit :
>> [...] The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter, rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest qualities.[...]

Steve

As an American you are surely familiar with the slogan 'no taxation 
without representation'. That particular political expression is a sub 
set of 'no legislation without representation'. Or is it that these old 
fashioned ideas are no longer valid in the emerging brave new world, a 
post-democratic world.

parminder


> Dear Steve,
> Thanks for your very interesting and clarifying technical comments.
>
> But about this precise point of trust, a large part of the world could
> consider that US law is good *for US*.
> Because of a bunch of recent laws that extend extraterritoriality and
> allow surveillance.
> And because precisely, the high technical qualities require US lawyers...
> And because the USA are far and strange for a lot of people.
> And because other countries have also good laws.
>
> All these points feed mistrust.
> Exactly as a mirror: some US laws are fed of mistrust. And some
> practices shew abuses.
> Some of American great analysts themselves say it: the US have been
> making mistakes at least since 10 years.
>
> So, IMHO, the first question could be: how could we build again some trust?
> I think that, perhaps, chosing one common goal could help. But in order
> to operate, it must be a bit out of the Internet management game.
> And it must include civil society. Not only negociators for trade treaties.
> That was the sense of my group's contribution to NetMundial.
>
> Sorry if I disturbed. I saw some light and I entered the house ;-)
>
> @+, best regards, Dominique
>


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

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

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

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Mon Mar 17 09:00:06 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:00:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
	<6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>

Suresh,

I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
ones?) have agreed to?

Sorry if I missed something.

Best,

Andrea
On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not
> become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what
> the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed
> upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>
> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>     Parminder,
>
>  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Thanks for this effort.
>>
>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>> decision making on public policy issues...
>>
>
>  I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their
> formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or
> the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
> context.)
>
>
> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us
> have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>
> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether
> self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a
> 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their
> collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much
> ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think
> that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a
> business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming
> from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual
> decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated
> policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>
>
>   Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government
> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in
> some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if
> so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be
> clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the
> beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors
> before extending to other domains of governance?
>
>  I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
> them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
> policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
> And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>
>  If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
> government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to
> say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
> unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>
>
>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
>> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to
>> know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would
>> no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
>> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
>> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
>> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>
>
>  Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
> expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
> transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
> guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
> proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
> apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
> announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
> transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
> other stakeholders.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>
>>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN,
>> in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
>> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>>
>> Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>   On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>
>>    Dear All,
>>
>>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>> concerns.
>>
>>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>  ---
>>
>>  IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
>> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
>> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
>> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
>> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>> proposal to finalize this transition.
>>
>>
>>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
>> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
>> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
>> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
>> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>
>>
>>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
>> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
>> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
>> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
>> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
>> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
>> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
>> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
>> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
>> Internet's domain name system.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/be389699/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 09:06:01 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:36:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>

There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?

Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> Suresh,
> 
> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?
> 
> Sorry if I missed something.
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Andrea
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>> 
>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>> Parminder,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for this effort. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
>>>> 
>>>> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.)
>>> 
>>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>> 
>>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?  
>>>> 
>>>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>>> 
>>>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>>>  
>>>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>> 
>>>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders.  
>>>> 
>>>> Mawaki
>>>>  
>>>>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/01feb1f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Mon Mar 17 09:12:16 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:12:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
	<6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com>

I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I
was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus
on "multi-stakeholderism".

Andrea
On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong
> disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> Suresh,
>
> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
> of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
> precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
> ones?) have agreed to?
>
> Sorry if I missed something.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not
>> become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what
>> the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed
>> upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>
>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
>> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
>> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>     Parminder,
>>
>>  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>> Thanks for this effort.
>>>
>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>>> decision making on public policy issues...
>>>
>>
>>  I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
>> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their
>> formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or
>> the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
>> context.)
>>
>>
>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us
>> have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>
>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors,
>> nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have
>> a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
>> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their
>> collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much
>> ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
>> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>
>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think
>> that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a
>> business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming
>> from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual
>> decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and
>> associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>
>>
>>   Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government
>> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in
>> some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if
>> so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be
>> clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the
>> beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors
>> before extending to other domains of governance?
>>
>>  I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
>> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
>> them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
>> policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
>> And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>
>>  If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of
>> the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid
>> to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
>> unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>
>>
>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>
>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
>>> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to
>>> know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would
>>> no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
>>> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
>>> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
>>> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>
>>
>>  Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
>> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
>> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
>> expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
>> transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
>> guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
>> proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
>> apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
>> announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
>> transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
>> other stakeholders.
>>
>>  Mawaki
>>
>>
>>>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN,
>>> in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>
>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
>>> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>>>
>>> Thanks, parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    Dear All,
>>>
>>>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>  ---
>>>
>>>  IGC Draft Press Release
>>>
>>>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>>> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>>> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
>>> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
>>> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
>>> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
>>> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
>>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>>> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>>> proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
>>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
>>> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
>>> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
>>> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
>>> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
>>> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
>>> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
>>> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
>>> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
>>> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
>>> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>>> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
>>> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
>>> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
>>> Internet's domain name system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>
>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/a7ef6111/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 09:19:38 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:49:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net>

Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy discussion?

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus on "multi-stakeholderism".
> 
> Andrea
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>> 
>> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Suresh,
>>> 
>>> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?
>>> 
>>> Sorry if I missed something.
>>> 
>>> Best, 
>>> 
>>> Andrea
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>>> 
>>>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>> Parminder,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for this effort. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder 
>>>>> 
>>>>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4               principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for                                                     Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/64c1107a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 09:32:03 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:32:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>     Parminder,
>
>  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Thanks for this effort.
>>
>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>> decision making on public policy issues...
>>
>
>  I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their
> formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or
> the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
> context.)
>
>
> Would you please explain what that common understanding is....
>

I have tried to articulate that in the current version of the IGC
statement/press release. In fact I have agonized over and tried my best to
craft the wording so as to minimize your concerns by reducing the presence
of bones of contention (have you taken a look at it yet? I probably
wouldn't have asked you all the questions I did in my response to your
earlier comment had I written this version of the statement before replying
to your comment, as I just want us to get this statement done, not to get
us discussing and working on the foundation of an emerging area of
knowledge and practice.)



> Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long
> now...
>
> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether
> self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a
> 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their
> collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much
> ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>

For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way to call a form of
inclusive policymaking process. I see stakeholders as part of the people. I
don't think people need or should need some validation from political
parties before they can directly participate in policymaking. This may even
happen with traditional policymaking issues (the ones that can be easily
confined to a national polity) if the elected officials are enlightened
enough to constantly consult with the people and the affected groups in
their decision making processes. But sticking to political parties or
formal processes as the sole source of legitimate voice for policymaking
becomes even more problematic on issues where we depend so much on each
other across the world. So for me, while the concept and its implementation
may not be mature, stable and robust enough to stand all relevant tests,
"multistakeholderism" is just an attempt to get people (at least those who
are aware among those affected by the policies) to participate in the
policymaking in some orderly fashion (i.e. the organizing in stakeholders.)

Now, I'm not naive. I know this is far from being perfect and the process
can be captured and become an instrument for special interests with no much
regard for public interest. That's where our focus should be, trying to
make sure special interests do not use the mantle of stakeholders to drown
out the voice and interests of the people. Granted, that's a tall order.
But saying that political parties, elections, or other formal processes are
the only way for legitimate representation, the only way to have a voice in
the policymaking process is where we will have hard time finding an
agreement. Maybe we shouldn't have called that "multistakeholder", maybe
the boundaries of stakeholders are ill-conceived and they should be
something else, and clearly the checks and balances for
"multistakeholderism" leave much to be desired as of now and we still have
a lot of work to do, but governments and political parties cannot be the
only answer, can they?


>
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding',
>

See my comments/responses above, and the current version of the statement.


> I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme,
> want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone
> coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making
> actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>

I hope not.
Now please let's focus on the statement and finalize it (the broader
discussion on MSism will certainly go on, but I personally wish to rest my
case with this message.)
Thanks,

Mawaki


>
> parminder
>
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated
> policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>
>
>
>   Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government
> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in
> some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if
> so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be
> clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the
> beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors
> before extending to other domains of governance?
>
>  I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
> them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
> policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
> And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>
>  If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
> government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to
> say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
> unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>
>
>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
>> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to
>> know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would
>> no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
>> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
>> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
>> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>
>
>  Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
> expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
> transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
> guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
> proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
> apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
> announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
> transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
> other stakeholders.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>
>>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN,
>> in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
>> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>>
>> Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>   On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>
>>    Dear All,
>>
>>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>> concerns.
>>
>>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>  ---
>>
>>  IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
>> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
>> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
>> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
>> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>> proposal to finalize this transition.
>>
>>
>>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
>> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
>> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
>> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
>> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>
>>
>>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
>> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
>> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
>> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
>> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
>> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
>> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
>> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
>> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
>> Internet's domain name system.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/d5bfd1f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Mar 17 09:55:14 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:55:14 -0300
Subject: [governance] CGI.br contributions to NetMundial
Message-ID: <5326FEC2.7080602@cafonso.ca>

Hi people,

[with apologies for duplicates]

Please find attached in plain text three contributions sent by CGI.br to
NetMundial:

- Evolution and Internationalization of ICANN

- The Importance of a Multistakeholder Approach to Cybersecurity
Effectiveness

- Privacy and Surveillance

There is another contribution which simply reproduces our 10 Principles,
which are well known, so no need to replicate here.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

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

-------------- next part --------------
The Importance of a Multistakeholder Approach to Cybersecurity Effectiveness

    Area: ROADMAP FOR THE FURTHER EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE ECOSYSTEM
    Entitled by: Cristine Hoepers, Klaus Steding-Jessen, Henrique Faulhaber
    Region: Brazil
    Organization: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
    Sector: Other
    Keywords: Multistakeholder, Internet Ecosystem, Cyber security, Internet Security, CERTs

Abstract

Most Internet security threats are increasingly complex, affecting multiple sectors at the same time, and requiring coordinated efforts to be detected and effectively mitigated. This is specially true to incidents involving botnets, spam, malware and DDoS. In the past 20 years several multistakeholder forums and initiatives that deal with Internet security threats were created - most of them have been very successful in bringing different sectors together to mitigate security incidents and counter cybercrime. All these efforts highlighted that the effectiveness depends on cooperation among different stakeholders, and that cybersecurity can't be achieved via a single organization or structure. Also, governments need to participate more in security forums and improve cooperation with other stakeholders. New forums and initiatives should not replace existing structures; they should aim at leveraging and improving the multistakeholder structures already in place today.

Document

The Importance of a Multistakeholder Approach to Cybersecurity Effectiveness

1. Introduction
============================

Most Internet security threats are increasingly complex, affecting multiple stakeholders at the same time, and requiring coordinated efforts to be detected and mitigated.  This is specially true to incidents involving botnets, spam, malware and DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks.

The scenario gets more complicated when critical national infrastructures are connected to the Internet, becoming exposed to the same vulnerabilities as other systems, and can be attacked by the same tools or techniques used for attacks in other contexts.

The protection of critical infrastructures and government networks connected to the Internet have both Internet security and defense aspects - the protection of these infrastructures is done most of the time by government organizations.  What is worrisome is that we are increasingly seeing purely Internet security issues being perceived by governments as purely defense issues.  This is leading to a scenario where, for example, the vital cooperation already existing among CERTs (Computer Emergency Response Teams) with National Responsibility being undermined by a tendency to move all existing Internet security capabilities into government or intelligence organizations.

The Internet ecosystem's security, stability and resilience should remain multistakeholder. The cooperation among different sectors and stakeholders, already existing today, is key to mitigate most of the current threats.

In the remainder of this proposal, we will briefly discuss several current multistakeholder forums and initiatives, pointing out their strengths, and bringing to attention issues that need to be considered when discussing a framework to improve the multistakeholder approach in order to achieve more effective cybersecurity.

2. Existing Multistakeholder Forums
============================

There are some international forums that already exist today and that congregate different stakeholders, cooperating to handle security incidents and mitigate specific threats.  Most of these forums were created to mitigate specific categories of attacks or threats.  As nowadays the threat landscape changed and there is a prevalence of what is technically referred to as combined threats, most of these organizations are dealing with similar security issues.  What follows is a description of each one of these organizations.

2.1. FIRST - Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams

FIRST is the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams - http://first.org/.  A Computer Security and Incident Response Team (CSIRT), sometimes also referred as CERT, is a service organization that is responsible for receiving, reviewing, and responding to computer security incident reports and activity. Their services are usually performed for a defined constituency that could be a parent entity such as a corporate, governmental, or educational organization; a region or country; a research network; or a paid client (Source: http://www.cert.org/incident-management/csirt-development/csirt-faq.cfm).

The first CSIRT, the CERT Coordination Center, was created in November 1988, after the security incident known as "Internet worm" or "Morris worm" brought major portions of the Internet to its knees, and made clear the need to more coordinated efforts to respond to security incidents on the Internet.  After this incident, several other teams were created. The FIRST was formed in 1990 in response to a second worm, the "Wank worm", and this incident highlighted the need for better communication and coordination among teams of different organizations.

FIRST is an international confederation of trusted computer incident response teams who cooperatively handle computer security incidents and promote incident prevention programs.  FIRST brings together a wide variety of CSIRTs from around the globe including educational, commercial, vendor, national, government and military.  FIRST members develop and share technical information, tools, methodologies, processes and best practices, and use their combined knowledge, skills and experience to promote a safer and more secure Internet environment.

2.2.  CSIRTs with National Responsibility and the NatCSIRT Annual Meeting

Since 2006, the CERT(R) Coordination Center (CERT/CC) has been hosting an annual technical meeting for CSIRTs with national responsibility. This meeting provides an opportunity for the organizations responsible for protecting the security of nations, economies, and critical infrastructures to discuss the unique challenges they face while fulfilling this role.  As a result of these meetings, an online Forum is maintained throughout the year, as well as a list of CSIRTs with National Responsibility: http://www.cert.org/incident-management/national-csirts/national-csirts.cfm

It is noteworthy that there are very different models of National CSIRTs, ranging from not for profit, to academic, to government teams. Also, several countries have more than one team, demonstrating the complexity of increasing cybersecurity and performing incident handling at a national level.

2.3. APWG

APWG (http://apwg.org/) was founded in 2003 as the Anti-Phishing Working Group, at which time its mission was to counter phishing attacks.  But, as the technology evolved, APWG is not focused only on phishing anymore, but on mitigating other attacks that are used to perpetrate cybercrime.  APWG has more than 2000 members and research partners worldwide, from financial institutions, retailers, solutions providers, ISPs, telcos, CSIRTs, universities, defense contractors, law enforcement agencies, trade groups, treaty organizations and government agencies.

2.4. MAAWG - The Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group

MAAWG is The Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (http://www.maawg.org/) and brings the messaging industry together to work collaboratively and to successfully address the various forms of messaging abuse, such as spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and other messaging exploitations.  To accomplish this, MAAWG develops initiatives in the three areas necessary to resolve the messaging abuse problem: industry collaboration, technology, and public policy.

2.5. ISOC - The Internet Society

ISOC - The Internet Society (http://www.internetsociety.org/) - is an organization dedicated to ensuring that the Internet stays open and transparent. It has initiatives in Internet policy, technology standards, and future development.  ISOC has a special project called "Combating Spam Project", in partnership with MAAWG, dedicated to demonstrating to policy makers, clearly and effectively, the tools and industry partnerships that are available to tackle spam.

3. Examples of Successful Multistakeholder International and National Initiatives
============================

In the past few years, CSIRTs, Network Operators and members of the aforementioned forums became involved in some specific projects and working groups aimed at mitigating specific big threats, implementing best practices or better understanding the Internet threat environment.  In this section we are going to describe some of these successful multistakeholder initiatives.

3.1. The Conficker Working Group

Starting in late 2008, and continuing through June of 2010, a coalition of security researchers worked to resist an Internet borne attack carried out by malicious software known as Conficker. This coalition became known as "The Conficker Working Group", and seemed to be successful in a number of ways, not the least of which was unprecedented cooperation between organizations and individuals around the world, in both the public and private sectors (Source: http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/).

The work of this group involved members of Internet Governance Bodies, Software and Hardware Vendors, Content providers, Universities and Research Centers, and was vital to mitigate the worm's malicious payloads and to help clean systems throughout the Internet.  A Lessons Learned document can be find in the previously listed homepage.

3.2. DNS-changer Working Group

The DNS Changer Working Group (DCWG - http://www.dcwg.org/) was an ad hoc group of subject matter experts, and included members from organizations such as Georgia Tech, Internet Systems Consortium, Mandiant, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, Neustar, Spamhaus, Team Cymru, Trend Micro, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.  The work of the DCWG was coordinated with FBI investigations, and received help from several National CERTs and ISPs.

This working group was created to help remediate Rove Digital's malicious DNS servers.  The botnet operated by Rove Digital altered user DNS settings, pointing victims to malicious DNS in data centers in Estonia, New York, and Chicago. The malicious DNS servers would give fake, malicious answers, altering user searches, and promoting fake and dangerous products. Because every web search starts with DNS, the malware showed users an altered version of the Internet.

The cooperation among all these stakeholders made it possible to gradually alert and help disinfect the end users' devices, without disrupting their access to the Internet.

3.3. Multistakeholder initiatives at a National level

There are several multistakeholder initiatives at a National level. In this section we will briefly describe some of these initiatives.

3.3.1. The Dutch Cyber Security Council

The Dutch Cyber Security Council has 15 members from government, industry, and the scientific community, for a total of three scientists, six public sector and six private sector representatives. The Council is supported by an independent secretariat.  The Council oversees the Dutch National Cyber Security Strategy and offers both solicited and unsolicited advice to the Dutch government and society. The role that the Council played during the DigiNotar incident, for example, demonstrated the effectiveness of this kind of public-private partnership in the digital domain.

In July 2013, the Council issued an advice on the new National Cyber Security Strategy, published in October 2013. The advice specifically focused on the need for close cooperation and coordination in the field of incident detection and response. Only through active information sharing, timely response and seamless collaboration can a secure digital environment be established.

Source:

https://www.ncsc.nl/english/current-topics/news/best-practices-in-computer-network-defense.html

3.3.2. The Japanese Cyber Clean Center

The Cyber Clean Center (CCC) is a core organization taking a role to promote bot cleaning and prevention of re-infection of users' computers, which were once infected by bots, based on cooperation among government, software vendors and ISPs.  The Cyber Clean Center has a Steering Committee and three working groups in the layer below: the bot countermeasure system operation group; the bot program analysis group; and the bot infection prevention promotion group.

Source:

https://www.ccc.go.jp/en_ccc/

3.3.3. CGI.br Port 25 Management Initiative

For a long time, Brazil was present on most spam rankings as a top spam relaying country. Determined to reverse this situation, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) has conducted, since 2005, a number of activities, such as academic studies and technical analyses, which lead to the adoption of Port 25 management as the most effective measure to be taken to prevent spammers from abusing the Brazilian broadband infrastructure. This initiative was lead by CGI.br's Anti-Spam Working Group (CT-Spam), which provided a forum where different stakeholders were able to meet.

For almost 20 years, Brazil has developed a model of multistakeholder Internet governance. Therefore, a measure of such importance as the blocking of outgoing port 25 traffic in residential networks could not be adopted without all sectors affected being asked to contribute to this decision-making process.

Bringing together the experience of more than a dozen telecom companies, thousands of Internet service providers, representatives of civil society and the academic community, as well as the technical staff of CGI.br, the process of adopting Port 25 management was broadly discussed.  This was specially important because the implementation required a concerted effort, with e-mail service providers making sure they offered Message Submission via a different port (587), and migrated at least 90% of their users' base before broadboand providers could block outbound port 25 traffic.

It is also important to highlight that both the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and the Ministry of Justice have played a key role in providing support for the telecom companies and the consumer protection entities respectively. Anatel signed a Cooperation Agreement with CGI.br, which gave the telecom companies legal grounds to proceed with the adoption. The Ministry of Justice, on the other hand, published a Technical Note explaining the benefits of such measures for consumers.

As a result of this initiative, Brazil is no longer listed as one of the top spam relaying countries in the world, according to several public rankings.

Source:

http://www.nic.br/imprensa/clipping/2013/midia182.htm
http://www.cert.br/docs/palestras/certbr-citel-itu-isoc2013.pdf

3.3.4. CERT.br - Computer Emergency Response Team Brazil

CERT.br is the Computer Emergency Response Team Brazil, maintained by NIC.br, a not for profit organization created to implement the decisions and projects designed by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br.  All CERT.br activities take into account the need to involve all stakeholders to successfully increase the level of security and incident handling capacity of the networks connected to the Internet in Brazil.

Besides doing Incident Handling activities, CERT.br also works to increase security awareness in the Brazilian community, maintaining an early warning project with the goal of identifying new trends and correlating security events, as well as alerting Brazilian networks involved in malicious activities. CERT.br also helps new Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) to establish their activities in the country.

A clear example of the success of this approach is the Brazilian Distributed Honeypots Project, which, through a network of distributed honeypots in the Brazilian Internet space, increases the capacity of incident detection, event correlation and trend analysis in the country.  These honeypots are passive sensors that provide valuable situational awareness, without collecting production traffic neither performing any type of surveillance.  This project has sensors in more than 40 Brazilian partner organizations, ranging from government and energy sectors, to academia, ISPs and Telecommunication Providers.

Source:

http://www.cgi.br/english/activities/
http://www.nic.br/english/about/
http://www.cert.br/about/
http://honeytarg.cert.br/honeypots/

4. The need for improvement of the multistakeholder collaboration in cybersecurity
============================

Achieving a satisfactory level of Internet Security is not an easy task, but the experience accumulated by several successful initiatives demonstrates that, in order to be effective, any cybersecurity initiative needs to involve several stakeholders. More than that, the reality is that more often than not, the security measures need to be taken by systems administrators, network operators or security professionals in their own networks. However, cooperation with others is key to be able to understand the threats and better evaluate the effectiveness of their actions.

In the document "Conficker Working Group: Lessons Learned" (http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/wiki/uploads/Conficker_Working_Group_Lessons_Learned_17_June_2010_final.pdf), published in January 2011, although the word "multistakeholder" is not used, some of the success factors listed point to the importance of cooperation and the involvement of different stakeholders.  Here are some examples:

-    Utilize a trust model; the scope of the working group needs to be a manageable size to be effective and include those directly affected, and yet large enough to include a broader universe of those impacted.

-    Incorporate a consensus model without hierarchy to allow the group to adapt and respond to fast changing conditions.

-    Gain the participation and support of key governing and regulatory bodies.

-    Formalize communications with stakeholder groups vs. relying on social networks.

These four points bring to light issues like the rapid change of the threat landscape, the need for rapid communication, the involvement and support of governments and the fact that several stakeholders need to cooperate.

Although the Conficker Working Group was very successful, as well as other initiatives listed in the previous section, there are still some stakeholders that could improve their cooperation. For example:

-    Network Operator Groups (NOGs) and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) should be more involved with security issues.  There are some areas like routing security (and newly proposed protocols like RPKI or SBGP) or DNSSEC that need worldwide adoption to be effective.  RIRs could also work more closely with the CSIRT community to improve the WHOIS system to help the incident handling process.

-    Software vendors need to become involved and be more pro-active; after all, most of the security problems we face today are software-related problems.  The real challenge is to improve software security and get the software industry to a more mature level.

-    The governments, including military and intelligence sectors, in addition to traditional security and defense strategies, need to improve their awareness of the multistakeholder nature of the Internet and the vital importance of the cooperation to address security threats.  They need to participate more in the national and international security forums and improve cooperation with other stakeholders.

Considering government cyber security strategies, it is noteworthy that about 130 parties, including public and private parties, knowledge institutions and social organisations, were involved in the drafting of the Dutch "National Cyber Security Strategy 2 - From awareness to capability" (NCSS2) (https://www.ncsc.nl/english/current-topics/news/new-cyber-security-strategy-strengthens-cooperation-between-government-and-businesses.html). The strategy starts with the following statement:

    "We are moving from structures to coalitions in which all parties -- national and international -- are represented in order to achieve supported standards."

And adds that

    "The correlation between security, freedom and social-economic benefits proposed in the NCSS2 is a dynamic balance that is intended to be realised in a constantly open and pragmatic dialogue between all stakeholders, both national and international. (...) In order to bring the dialogue about cyber security between the various stakeholders to a new level of maturity, the following three management areas are of the utmost importance: (self) regulation, transparency and knowledge development."

This is a good example of the recognition of the importance of a multistakeholder approach to the Internet ecosystem's security, stability and resilience.

5. Recommendations
============================

As stated before, achieving a satisfactory level of Internet Security is not an easy task, and the multistakeholder initiatives previously discussed are good examples of frameworks that can effectively deal with cybersecurity current and emerging issues.  Therefore, it is recommended that all national and international organizations involved with Internet Governance, for instance, Local Governments, RIRs, United Nations, European Union, ISOC Chapters, among others, should take the following into consideration:

1.    The experience accumulated by the several successful initiatives described in this contribution demonstrates that, in order to be effective, any cybersecurity initiative depends on cooperation among different stakeholders, and it can't be achieved via a single organization or structure.

2.    There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved, like network operators and software developers.

3.    Governments, including military and intelligence sectors, in addition to traditional security and defense strategies, need to improve their awareness of the multistakeholder nature of the Internet and the vital importance of cooperation to address security threats.  They need to participate more in the national and international security forums and improve cooperation with other stakeholders.

4.    There is room and a need for new forums and initiatives, but they should not replace existing structures.  Any new initiative should aim at leveraging and improving the multistakeholder structures already in place today.



-------------- next part --------------
Evolution and Internationalization of ICANN

    Area: ROADMAP FOR THE FURTHER EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE ECOSYSTEM
    Entitled by: Flavio Rech Wagner
    Region: Brazil
    Organization: CGI.br - Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
    Sector: Other
    Keywords: ICANN, internationalization, multistakeholderism, accountability, IANA functions

Abstract

CGI.br understands that ICANN’s evolution shall be guided by two main tenets: (1) ICANN has to be fully internationalized and has to develop a proper framework for both vertical and horizontal accountability; and (2) ICANN's institutional evolution shall seek a better equilibrium among all stakeholders and among all countries. Instead of specific proposals, this document highlights goals to be pursued after the NetMundial meeting and posits requirements to be observed and questions to be asked in the course of that quest. CGI.br assumes that ICANN shall remain the responsible institution for the assignment of names and numbers and understands that keeping ICANN as focal point for those activities is the best alternative for the assurance of a unique and global Internet. It does not mean that ICANN’s operation and governance system are to remain unchallenged. Instead, it means that it is better to count on a fully established system to be enhanced than to start a whole new system.
Document

Evolution and Internationalization of ICANN 

CGI.br - Brazilian Internet Steering Committee  (Note 1)

Summary

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) understands that ICANN’s evolution shall be guided by these main tenets: (1) the organization has to be fully internationalized and it has to develop a proper framework for both vertical and horizontal accountability; and (2) ICANN's institutional evolution shall seek a better equilibrium among all stakeholders, as well as among the different countries. Instead of listing a set of specific proposals, this document highlights some objectives to be pursued after the NetMundial meeting and posits some requirements to be observed and some questions to be asked in the course of that quest. It bears on the assumption that ICANN should be the responsible institution within the Internet governance ecosystem for the assignment of names and numbers, including the full spectrum of the IANA functions. CGI.br understands that the maintenance of ICANN as a focal point for those activities is the best alternative for the assurance of a unique and global Internet, for it has the established technical capacity and the policy-making mechanisms that can keep the Internet running without compromising its availability in the furtherance of current global Internet governance discussion fora, such as NetMundial and IGF. It does not mean that ICANN’s operation and its governance system are to remain unchallenged. It simply means that it is better to count on a fully established system to be enhanced than to start a whole system from scratch.

1. The role for an internationalized ICANN

CGI.br supports the measures that have been taken in regard to ICANN's internationalization, but understands that so far they have been focused mainly on the operational level of its mandate (Note 2). Far more important than those efforts is placing ICANN under a new international legal-institutional framework that replaces the current contract (the Affirmation of Commitments) with the USA government and removes ICANN's direct or indirect subordination to the US legal system (Note 3). In realistic terms, this goal may be achieved within a 5 to 10 years time frame, following a sequence of steps that are still to be devised, following a roadmap for the international Internet governance ecosystem that is expected as one of the outcomes of multistakeholder fora like NetMundial, IGF, and others.

One of the main IANA functions is the global coordination of the allocation and registration of IP addresses. ICANN is still legally responsible for this function, but its practical execution is completely decentralized by the global structure of five different Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). These RIRs have in turn created a coordination forum - the Number Resource Organization (NRO). The RIRs and the NRO coordinate the process of distribution of IPv4 and IPv6 blocks, also taking into account a well designed and consensual strategy for the transition of the number resources. CGI.br strongly believes that this is a very good example of how other IANA functions can be decentralized and delegated, without removing the overall institutional responsibility of ICANN over those functions. It also serves as a very suitable model for the internationalization of IANA functions.

The sound solution for the internationalization of ICANN - considering that it should keep all its current responsibilities - has to encompass the discussion of adequate solutions for the effective internationalization of all IANA functions (not only the allocation and registration of IP addresses). In the search of an adequate legal and institutional framework that replaces the current contract with the US government, it will be extremely relevant to decide which entity, or set of entities, will be made responsible for the management of the root zone file, such as to guarantee its stability, security, and reliability. An adequate direction for that matter can be the assignment of this task to a set of international entities (in a way similar to the RIRs/NRO structure for IP allocation) that are already responsible for other aspects of the Internet governance, that operate in a well-balanced multistakeholder model, and that bear the required technical qualifications.

A third aspect of the evolution of ICANN towards its internationalization is its accountability. ICANN is currently accountable to the US government, according to the goals and mechanisms that are established by the AoC. In theoretical terms, those present to the NetMundial meeting shall bear in mind the fact that there are different sorts of accountability that depend mostly on the nature of the relations and of the interest of the actors in a specific institutional setting (Note 4). Within democratic political institutions, for instance, vertical and horizontal accountability are two different components of overall accountability (Note 5). Vertical accountability means that each specific organ within the ICANN chart has to be fully accountable to its direct constituents. Horizontal accountability means that, within the ICANN system, every single organ has to be fully accountable to all others as well. And all of the system has to be fully accountable to Internet users in general, in a reliable, open and transparent, and timely manner. How can ICANN, in an international legal and institutional framework different from the AoC and from the current bylaws that guide the corporation, be accountable to the public interest, represented by all end users of the Internet, in a way that is consistent with universally accepted principles of use and governance of the Internet which respect fundamental human rights and promote social, economic, and cultural progress of citizens of all countries?

An adequate roadmap for the evolution of the global Internet governance ecosystem, together with a roadmap for the internationalization of ICANN, must firstly look for this set of principles for the use and governance of the Internet, from which the definition of accountability mechanisms for ICANN will be possible. In a certain way, the set of stakeholder groups that are present in ICANN also represents the international public interest, expressed by a set of principles for use and governance of the Internet - or, with the appropriate improvements in the structure and operation of ICANN, they may be able to represent this public interest. A possible way for improving the accountability of ICANN is to assign the oversight responsibility within the new institutional setting to be proposed as an outcome of NetMundial to already existent stakeholder groups within the ICANN system. Another approach would be the assignment of that oversight to entities outside ICANN, as long as they are recognized as representative of the international public interest. A clear advantage of this second approach is the avoidance of an overlapping reality, in which the organization responsible for policy making is also responsible for the oversight of policy implementation.

2. Leveling the playfield among stakeholders and countries

In a paper presented at the 8th Annual GigaNet Symposium, Laura DeNardis and Mark Raymond classified multistakeholderism according to the type of stakeholders involved (States, firms, non-governmental organizations, and/or international organizations) and the nature of authority relations enshrined within a specific political community (hierarchical, polyarchic, or anarchic). The matrix derived from those two variables yields thirty three different forms of multistakeholderism (Note 6). CGI.br has its own model of governance - recognized as a best practice within several different fora, including the Internet Governance Forum and ICANN itself. It has successfully created a decalogue of fundamental principles for the use and governance of the Internet in Brazil. Both CGI.br's governance model and its decalogue can inform the way forward for the global governance of the Internet, not only because they represent the commitment of all stakeholders involved, but also because it expressly deals with cultural and socio-economic developmental issues that can serve the purposes and interests of developing and the least developed countries in global governance at large (Note 7).

A first step on that direction shall be the establishment of a serious and permanent discussion about the appropriate contours of multistakeholderism for Internet governance in the 21st Century. Bearing in mind the study conducted by DeNardis and Raymond, CGI.br believes that the best model comprises all of the relevant actors within their scope of action and is polyarchic in form (the one in which authority is neither centralized within a single entity nor inexistent).

Despite being polyarchic in nature, ICANN multistakeholder governance sometimes can tilt between anarchy (in which economic and political power outside institutional constraints is the enforcing mechanism) and hierarchy (in which the Board or the GAC, for instance, imposes restrictions on the action of other stakeholders). In light of that abstract reality, analyses of the structure and operation of ICANN have revealed various problems regarding an inadequate balance among the various stakeholder groups. Examples of problems are: the inadequacy of the mechanism for governments’ participation via the GAC; the very small influence of civil society upon the final decisions of the GNSO and the Board; and the capture of ICANN by the domain industry (both registries and registrars). To these problems we must add the lack of balance among different countries, whereby developing countries (both their governments and representatives of their civil societies and private sectors) have a very small influence on the policy cycle. The current structure of ICANN, including the Board, the SOs and the ACs, with their respective roles, and in particular the daily operation of these bodies, do not seem to achieve an adequate balance among all stakeholder groups and among all countries (Note 8).

Although the improvements regarding transparency and accountability suggested by the ATRT 1, and revised and enhanced by the ATRT 2, go in the right direction, they lack enough generality, since they basically reflect priorities and conditions expressed by the AoC. A revision of those recommendations under a much more general framework could bring important enhancements to the structure and operation of ICANN. 

In the following, we suggest some specific paths to be followed. This is merely illustrative and shall be taken as a point of departure for further discussions:

1.    Even if the GAC keeps its role as an advisory body to the Board, government representatives should participate effectively in the policy development processes in the GNSO. Governments' influence on those policies only when they are being considered by the Board for final deliberation should be avoided, as it represents an unduly advantage over other stakeholder groups.

1.    The weight of registries and registrars in the policy development processes should be reduced. The current structure of “houses” in the GNSO gives them the same weight as all other stakeholder groups together, while, in fact, those other groups represent the interests of all other sectors of the society and are thus better placed to represent the public interest.

3.    The structure and the role of the ALAC should be revised, since there is a clear redundancy among the ALAC and stakeholder groups in the GNSO; also the ALAC does not take part in the policy development processes in the GNSO. If the ALAC is meant to represent, in theory, the interests of all Internet users, who should be considered as very important stakeholders (maybe even the most important ones), this seems highly contradictory. Besides, the participation of individuals and entities in the ALAC neither follows transparent rules nor guarantees an adequate global representation of users.

4.    The composition of the Board should be revised in order to reflect a better balance among stakeholder groups, considering the ultimate goals of ICANN, which should be materialized by a set of principles adopted by the organization for the use and governance of the Internet. In particular, in order to reinforce its multistakeholder nature, the number of Board seats allocated by the NomCom could be reduced, thus increasing the slots for Board members directly elected by the SOs.

5.    Sufficient funds should be provided to promote and ensure the participation of individuals representing stakeholder groups from developing countries. Mechanisms should be implemented to ensure their effective participation in the different organizations, committees, and working groups of ICANN.

6.    Once an adequate and balanced participation of all stakeholder groups (including governments) and all countries in the policy development processes in the GNSO is ensured, the role of the Board regarding the final approval of those policies should be revised. The Board should have only an oversight role over those processes, in a way to guarantee that they follow the adequate balance among all stakeholder groups and that the public interest has been served. The guidance for the Board shall derive from the overarching set of principles for the use and governance of the Internet to which ICANN should be committed. Also the Board accountability and transparency mechanisms should be improved, in such a way that the global society is able to check that the actions of the Board are consistent with the safeguard of those principles.

 

Notes:

1. CGI.br thanks the collaboration of Mr. Diego Rafael Canabarro in the drafting of this document. He is a PhD candidate in Political Science and Research Assistant to the Center for International Studies on Government (CEGOV) at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil.

2. ERMERT, M. ICANN CEO Wants To Shift “Centre Of Gravity” Away From US. IP Watch, April 9, 2013. Available in: www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/icann-ceo-wants-to-shift-centre-of-gravity-away-from-us/.

3. FROOMKIN, F. Almost Free: An Analysis of ICANN's ‘Affirmation of Commitments’ (January 20, 2011). Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 9, 2011; University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-01. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744086.

4. LERNER, J. S.; TETLOCK, P. E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological bulletin, v. 125, p. 255–275, 1999.

5. O'DONNELL, G. (1999), "Horizontal accountability in new democracies", in Schedler, A.G., O Diamond and M F Planner (editors).

6. DENARDIS, Laura; RAYMOND, Mark, Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder Internet Governance (November 14, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2354377 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354377. See also DENARDIS, Laura. “Multistakeholderism and the Internet Governance Challenge to Democracy,” Harvard International Review Vol. XXXIV, N. 4, Spring 2013.

7. http://www.cgi.br/regulamentacao/pdf/resolucao-2009-003-pt-en-es.pdf

8. FELD, H. Structured to Fail: ICANN and the Privatization Experiment. Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction. A. THIERER and C. W. CREWS. Washington, DC, USA, Cato Institute, (2003). --- PALFREY, J. G. The End of the Experiment: How ICANN's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 93; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2004-02. Available in: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=487644>. --- HUSTON, G. Opinion: ICANN, the ITU, WSIS, and Internet Governance. The Internet Protocol Journal, v. 8, n. 15-28, 2012. --- KLEIN, H.; MUELLER, M. What to Do About ICANN: A Proposal for Structural Reform. April 5, 2005. Available in: <http://Internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-icannreform.pdf>. --- LACROIX, D. (2013a). Governance of Top Level Domains (TLDs): a failed revolution? 1st International Conference on Internet Science, Brussels, April 9-11, pages 133-141, 2013.


-------------- next part --------------
Privacy and Surveillance

    Area: COMBINED INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND ROADMAP
    Entitled by: Veridiana Alimonti
    Region: Brazil
    Organization: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
    Sector: Other
    Keywords: right to privacy, human rights, surveillance, fundamentals

Abstract

Information and Communications Technologies provide powerful tools for collecting, storing and processing personal data. Such tools can be used by both the private sector and the Government, and in both cases they should comply with strict standards on the protection of the fundamental right to privacy. Edward Snowden’s denunciations of mass spying by the United States National Security Agency gave rise to a global general interest in the surveillance of citizens worldwide. Although PRISM-based programs and rules have been a reality for many years, Snowden's episode does not lose its relevance. States, civil society organizations and technical community has now a precious opportunity to set a needed path for the construction of global solutions to this issue within the Internet governance ecosystem. The purpose of this submission is to contribute to this discussion.

Document

In addition to enhancing the dissemination of ideas and opinions and allowing for the creation and manifestation of diversity, Information and Communications Technologies also provide powerful tools for collecting, storing and processing personal data. Such tools can be used by both the private sector and the Government, and in both cases they must comply with strict standards on the protection of the fundamental right to privacy.

Internationally, this right is provided for in article XII of the Declaration of Human Rights, which protects one from any arbitrary or illegal interference with its private life and assures the protection of law against such interferences and attacks. Similar provision is given under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among others.

Different national and regional laws also include the right to privacy with more or less details. In Brazil, privacy protection is an indelible clause (“cláusula pétrea”) of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, covering the inviolability of the communications (articles 5, X and XII), and is part of the Brazilian Internet Use and Governance Principles approved by CGI.Br - Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee) in 2009. Its strict relation with the exercise of freedom of expression, with the access to the information and with the base principles of a democratic society was reaffirmed in the recent UN resolution “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”, proposed by Brazil and Germany and supported by 55 co-sponsorsing countries.

Edward Snowden’s denunciations of mass spying by the United States National Security Agency gave rise to a global general interest in the surveillance of citizens worldwide. Although PRISM-based programs and rules have been a reality for many years, such as the Echelon Program or the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Snowden's episode is quite relevant for some reasons.

The first and most important of them is the opportunity that is opened for reviewing such practices in reply to the coordinated international reaction. The second one is the increased understanding that any reaction implies recognition of the global scale of the network, and therefore the international effort to set parameters and control mechanisms for surveillance. The third one consists of evidences that the fight against spying goes through telecommunication networks, different Internet layers, hardware and software. The question, therefore, is how to protect the privacy and the personal data in this context.

The current international Internet governance ecosystem lacks a proper body with authority to discuss and coordinate solutions from the perspective of human rights protection. Multistakeholder spaces such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) or the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) could be structured as bodies responsible for coordinating discussions and actions and entitled to make recommendations to other international bodies towards more effective privacy protection globally.

Given the current international law and human rights perspective, CGI.br also considers that the definition of parameters for ensuring privacy of communications must be based on some fundamentals:

- Initially, the principle of legality must be respected, i.e., the need for clear and accurate legal provision for cases where communication surveillance is admitted must be ensured. These law provisions must confer such powers only upon authorization by the competent judicial authority and for a legitimate aim clearly delimited that serves to the protection of relevant legal interests required in democratic societies. Communications surveillance may not be established based on discrimination of race, color, religion, gender, language, nationality, social origins, political opinions, or other similar criteria.

- Such limitations to privacy in communications must be necessary, adequate and proportional considering the legitimate goals intended to be achieved. “Necessary”, because it must be the only means or the least offensive alternative to human rights able to effectively achieve the intended legitimate aim. “Adequate” because it is necessary that it is proper to achieve this specific aim.  “Proportional”, because it must always be considered that the practice of surveillance is harmful to the exercise of fundamental rights and to democracy. In such context, the adoption of these practices must entail the balancing of the seriousness involving the breach of privacy in relation to the legitimate aim intended to be achieved, with the establishment of measures and differentiated degrees of intrusion for criminal investigations and other investigations.

- The limitations to the right to privacy on communications must be determined by a competent and impartial judicial authority that is independent from other authorities that conduct the surveillance proceedings. Court order shall be issued in the due process, subject to the procedures provided for by law, publicly known and in line with the protection of human rights. Full legal defense cannot be excluded also, and user notification may be waived or postponed only in specific cases set forth by law.

- Transparency of the States in the use and scope of the techniques and powers related to communications surveillance is required. Periodic reports must give information about refused and approved requests, about what is the service provider that has received them and about the type of investigation. The applicable legislation and the procedures put in place by the service providers, regarding those requests, also must be publicly available. The practice of surveillance by the State must be under the supervision of other entities. The compliance of these measures, however, doesn’t avoid the concern that the surveillance on communications may compromise the integrity, security and privacy of the communication system.

- Finally, it is relevant to establish protection related to the international cooperation on the provision of data and against the illegitimate access to the information of users. In the first case, among others, it is important to assure international standards with high level of human rights protection by means of agreements clearly documented, publicly available, and subjected to the guarantees of procedural fairness. In the second case, it’s necessary that countries are encouraged to consider on their legal systems the appropriated responsibility to improper usage and providing of data, as well as stipulate defense mechanisms to the individuals affected. The legal protection of privacy may also imply the guarantee of data destruction or its return to the individuals as soon as the material obtained through surveillance procedures has accomplished the purpose for which it has been collected.

These fundamentals are inspired by a proposal developed by different international civil society organizations and supported by more than 400 entities around the world, entitled “International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” (available at https://en.necessaryandproportionate.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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 17 10:05:04 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:35:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>

David,

On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net 
> <mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has 
>> an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree 
>> that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds 
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, 
>> not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems 
>> from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental 
>> knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can 
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>
> Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or 
> government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. 
> Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google 
> searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious 
> search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at 
> least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.

Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a 
response ... the issue of technical challenges needs to be considered, 
but anyone familiar with public policy making knows that policy making 
is a very complex activity with many possibilities, probabilities, 
difficulties, technicalities etc... the first sign of technical 
difficulties is no reason to abandon a public policy measure. The world 
of IT is supposed to be the world of great innovation, here innovation 
can serve public interest purpose (by identifying methods by which 
gaming can be reduced if not eliminated), rather than private profit.

> Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search 
> information, and how they use it

Who have they revealed it to?
How do we ensure that what they are saying reflects reality/truth?

In the spirit of public policy making (which normally involves 
considerable cross understanding, give and take), I am willing to 
consider possibilities that google does not make its search algorithm 
open to all, but shares it with a group/body of identified public 
interest actors, who can in confidence, scrutinise it to ensure that the 
search engine is not violating our rights for its commercial purposes 
(and for the political interests of its masters). Would you support this 
idea? This is one possibility, we may need to figure out many other 
possibilities, exceptions etc

> , and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the 
> privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data 
> after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a 
> detailed briefing in 2012).
> But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search 
> algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of 
> their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will 
> be gamed by search engine optimization services, thus rendering the 
> service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles 
> searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I 
> appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the 
> cultural commons,

Much thanks for appreciating that search for information in the 
"information society" is indeed part of cultural commons, it ought to 
work for the public interest and not be coloured by private interest. 
This I think is a basic principle. Today we really have no idea what 
malignant pieces of code are hidden in the search algorithm that violate 
various human rights .....

> but they have revealed their basic technique
> I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade 
> secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by 
> their development, AND the utility of the service to the general 
> public, seems to push that principle too far.
> Cheers
>
> David
>
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found 
>> to have violated competition norms of the country. Google, which is 
>> facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog 
>> Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to 
>> about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated 
>> competition norms of the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its 
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US 
>> antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were 
>> good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for 
>> over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is 
>> abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an 
>> entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up 
>> to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case 
>> of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a 
>> staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum 
>> penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a 
>> Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the 
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed 
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal 
>> Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are 
>> good for users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint 
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was 
>> first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 
>> 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com <http://matrimony.com> 
>> Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok 
>> Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine 
>> favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will 
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain 
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is 
>> the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the 
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source - 
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/d205ae60/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 10:12:36 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:12:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532702D4.9060005@apc.org>

Good points Mawaki.  And good statement too.  I do think that in this
paragraph you capture what many, if not most of us, understand by
inclusive policy making/multi-stakeholder participation in policy making.

I agree with your definition hereL

>
> For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way to call a form
> of inclusive policymaking process. I see stakeholders as part of the
> people. I don't think people need or should need some validation from
> political parties before they can directly participate in
> policymaking. This may even happen with traditional policymaking
> issues (the ones that can be easily confined to a national polity) if
> the elected officials are enlightened enough to constantly consult
> with the people and the affected groups in their decision making
> processes. But sticking to political parties or formal processes as
> the sole source of legitimate voice for policymaking becomes even more
> problematic on issues where we depend so much on each other across the
> world. So for me, while the concept and its implementation may not be
> mature, stable and robust enough to stand all relevant tests,
> "multistakeholderism" is just an attempt to get people (at least those
> who are aware among those affected by the policies) to participate in
> the policymaking in some orderly fashion (i.e. the organizing in
> stakeholders.) 
>
> Now, I'm not naive. I know this is far from being perfect and the
> process can be captured and become an instrument for special interests
> with no much regard for public interest. That's where our focus should
> be, trying to make sure special interests do not use the mantle of
> stakeholders to drown out the voice and interests of the people.
> Granted, that's a tall order. But saying that political parties,
> elections, or other formal processes are the only way for legitimate
> representation, the only way to have a voice in the policymaking
> process is where we will have hard time finding an agreement. Maybe we
> shouldn't have called that "multistakeholder", maybe the boundaries of
> stakeholders are ill-conceived and they should be something else, and
> clearly the checks and balances for "multistakeholderism" leave much
> to be desired as of now and we still have a lot of work to do, but
> governments and political parties cannot be the only answer, can they?
>  
Agree. And the challenge to prevent special interests from manipulating
policy processes remains. It is huge in traditional
'government/legislature' lead policy processes and it is also huge in
newer and experimental multi-stakeholder processes.

The advantage of more the evolving more transparent multi-stakeholder
processes is that it is harder for special interest groups to get what
they want, because they have to be more public about it.

Anriette



>
>     While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding',
>
>
> See my comments/responses above, and the current version of the statement.
>  
>
>     I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders'
>     meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar
>     role as someone coming from a formal political process - called
>     governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of
>     democracy.
>
>
> I hope not.
> Now please let's focus on the statement and finalize it (the broader
> discussion on MSism will certainly go on, but I personally wish to
> rest my case with this message.)
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki 
>
>
>
>     parminder
>
>     PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and
>     associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>
>
>
>>     Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
>>     government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this
>>     may have been so in some period in the history of human societies
>>     but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that
>>     such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start
>>     but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and
>>     that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before
>>     extending to other domains of governance?  
>>
>>     I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify
>>     public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority
>>     to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are
>>     really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all
>>     stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies
>>     isn't that part of policymaking?
>>
>>     If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role
>>     of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig,
>>     I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions
>>     on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view.
>>     Then shall we go back there again?
>>      
>>
>>         This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>>         Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the
>>         decision and complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say
>>         that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1)
>>         whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any
>>         contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>>         independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what
>>         happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of
>>         ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3)
>>         whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN'
>>         and if so, of what nature....
>>
>>
>>     Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision
>>     opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders.
>>     They were in a position and just announced they are willing to
>>     relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an
>>     eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental
>>     arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the
>>     rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which
>>     should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart
>>     from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in
>>     the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered
>>     in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation
>>     and that of all other stakeholders.  
>>
>>     Mawaki
>>      
>>
>>         And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation
>>         of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>>         Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance
>>         institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and
>>         the such...
>>
>>         Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>         On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>>         Dear All,
>>>
>>>         Please find a draft of the above subject for your
>>>         consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first
>>>         crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm
>>>         cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>
>>>         We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>         ---
>>>
>>>         IGC Draft Press Release
>>>
>>>         On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National
>>>         Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>>         announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has
>>>         played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>>>         Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>         functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the
>>>         final phase of the transition intended from the inception of
>>>         ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system
>>>         (DNS) and its stewardship. 
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
>>>         and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an
>>>         equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the
>>>         governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a
>>>         particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the
>>>         necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well
>>>         as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above
>>>         transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to
>>>         what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and
>>>         expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
>>>         services”] We also support the four principles put forward
>>>         by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in
>>>         the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>         While acknowledging the primary role of Internet
>>>         organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC
>>>         wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving
>>>         due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical
>>>         and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>>>         IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
>>>         extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy,
>>>         including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in
>>>         the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant
>>>         challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not
>>>         reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is
>>>         rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’
>>>         meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to
>>>         designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that
>>>         fits a truly global governance institution – with a
>>>         constituency and a customer base that actually is global.
>>>         Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be
>>>         found to the concern that while achieving effective
>>>         accountability such institution (to emerge from this
>>>         transition) should not be subject to any one national
>>>         jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>>>         available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming
>>>         NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet
>>>         Governance(www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br>) to
>>>         be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in
>>>         its consultation process for the transition proposal the
>>>         propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes
>>>         of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current
>>>         role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s
>>>         domain name system.
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>
>>>         March xx, 2014.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/3613a797/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Mar 17 10:07:03 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:07:03 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04BF4@USPDCMAIL002P.ree
 dsmith.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org>
 <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
 <532636C0.7030306@panamo.eu>
 <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04BF4@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <E1WPYUC-0008LJ-KX@igcaucus.org>

Dominique,
>The Snowden leaks seem above all to provide you an argument against 
>all governments and public bodies.

Actually, this is not an argument but an expertly engineered emotion 
with a simple intelligence target: an international demand for 
internet security by IETF/W3C to be transfered from exception to 
common law  i.e. a plain control by the US Congress. I impatiently 
wait for the Hollywood "The Snowden Manipulation" pictures.
jfc  


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

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Mar 17 10:50:36 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:50:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au> <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>


On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> David,
> 
> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>> 
>>  Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way. 
> 
> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...


Hi Guru,

Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge. 

Best,

Adam




> the issue of technical challenges needs to be considered, but anyone familiar with public policy making knows that policy making is a very complex activity with many possibilities, probabilities, difficulties, technicalities etc... the first sign of technical difficulties is no reason to abandon a public policy measure. The world of IT is supposed to be the world of great innovation, here innovation can serve public interest purpose (by identifying methods by which gaming can be reduced if not eliminated), rather than private profit.
> 
>>  Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search information, and how they use it
> 
> Who have they revealed it to?
> How do we ensure that what they are saying reflects reality/truth?
> 
> In the spirit of public policy making (which normally involves considerable cross understanding, give and take), I am willing to consider possibilities that google does not make its search algorithm open to all, but shares it with a group/body of identified public interest actors, who can in confidence, scrutinise it to ensure that the search engine is not violating our rights for its commercial purposes (and for the political interests of its masters). Would you support this idea? This is one possibility, we may need to figure out many other possibilities, exceptions etc
> 
>> , and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a detailed briefing in 2012).
>>  But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will be gamed by search engine optimization         services, thus rendering the service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the cultural commons,
> 
> Much thanks for appreciating that search for information in the "information society" is indeed part of cultural commons, it ought to work for the public interest and not be coloured by private interest. This I think is a basic principle. Today we really have no idea what malignant pieces of code are hidden in the search algorithm that violate various human rights .....
> 
>> but they have revealed their basic technique
>>  I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by their development, AND the utility of the service to the general public, seems to push that principle too far. 
>>  Cheers
>> 
>>  David
>>  
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Guru
>>> 
>>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>> 
>>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country. 
>>> 
>>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of             its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>>> 
>>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.” 
>>> 
>>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. 
>>> 
>>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put             them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>>> 
>>> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 17 11:29:43 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:59:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au> <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net> <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>

On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>>   Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.
>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...
>
> Hi Guru,
>
> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge.

Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable 
issues/challenges.  the challenge of gaming is obvious and I have no 
doubt it needs to be and can be  addressed.

By the same logic, free and open source software should have the maximum 
viruses since it the source code is freely available. Paradoxically, 
while Windows is plagued with viruses, GNU/Linux is not. One of the 
reasons given is that, the open source allows many people to study and 
identify issues and help resolve it... whereas this is not possible with 
proprietary software.

Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has dangerous 
public interest implications - we really dont know what is hidden in the 
code used by millions of users and how it may have malignant code that 
can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know how many US IT 
companies are hand in glove with the USG) political interest of its  
masters.? If yes,  then you need to think of a public interest based 
response to this ...  the ball is in your court as well..

Guru

> Best,
>
> 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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Mar 17 11:42:42 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:42:42 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
  policymaking Body
Message-ID: <E1WPZe9-0000iK-1a@igcaucus.org>

At 18:32 16/03/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
>By "principles" I mean qualities that need to be preserved going forward.

Steve,

There are many principles, but the two main ones to "preserve" are ... missing:

1. A clear international law definition of the kind of institution 
ICANN is. With this definition will have to come a clear definition 
of what "globalization", "status and stake holders", 
"multi-stakeholderism", "IANA functions", and "Internet" mean. This 
way it would be easier to evaluate the ICANN proposed features' 
added/removed value.

2. To insure that every member of the multitude is on an equal 
footing IRT ICANN deliveries. In order to help everyone checking this 
I propose that we inititiate some indepth tracking of the deliveries, 
and of the cases, situations and risks of unequal footing among the 
multitude, and reporting of the propositions addressing them.

jfc  


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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 12:11:39 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:41:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au> <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net> <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp> <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <892D9398-0311-4E9A-9FCB-1B1EFC3E5099@hserus.net>

Speaking as a security practitioner over the past 15 odd years, Linux has its fair share of malware.  And software that commonly runs on linux has its fair share of security holes which need to be patched.

The amount of malware on windows is much higher - but that is also due to its massive install base on desktops.

More eyes make less bugs is a bit of a broad generalization I must say. 

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 20:59, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>> 
>>> David,
>>> 
>>>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>>>  Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.
>>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...
>> 
>> Hi Guru,
>> 
>> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge.
> 
> Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable issues/challenges.  the challenge of gaming is obvious and I have no doubt it needs to be and can be  addressed.
> 
> By the same logic, free and open source software should have the maximum viruses since it the source code is freely available. Paradoxically, while Windows is plagued with viruses, GNU/Linux is not. One of the reasons given is that, the open source allows many people to study and identify issues and help resolve it... whereas this is not possible with proprietary software.
> 
> Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has dangerous public interest implications - we really dont know what is hidden in the code used by millions of users and how it may have malignant code that can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know how many US IT companies are hand in glove with the USG) political interest of its  masters.? If yes,  then you need to think of a public interest based response to this ...  the ball is in your court as well..
> 
> Guru
> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Adam
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon Mar 17 12:24:28 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:24:28 -0600
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <49246D6A-79C0-4012-A716-77871984247C@gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com> <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net> <49246D6A-79C0-4012-A716-77871984247C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F3D2C580-8343-4D7F-BDA3-492969EFF2E1@virtualized.org>

Diego,

On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Diego R. Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Kudos for all those who forget cases such as  .XXX, .PS and all the complaints made by Sudan at WCIT.

While I'm aware of the concerns regarding .XXX, could you provide information or pointers regarding complaints associated with .PS and/or complaints made by Sudan at WCIT?

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/7b8dc761/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Mar 17 12:40:09 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:40:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
 <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
 <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>
 <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>,<532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <57725fde13d044fc89fd30239786e884@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Hey Guru,

As I have previously stated, competition policy is a purview of states, and at global level, organizations like the WTO; and draft treaties like the TPP, like it or not.

ICANN can set its own - subsidiary - policies in that arena but it is far more likely the Chinese, Indian, French, EU, and US relevant government agencies will have oversight of Google search effects on market competition - and what a coincidence, all of them have a variety of competition policy inquiries into Google search and other practices going on right now.

Of course Best Bits and IGC are free to weigh in on the specifics in each of those cases, and make recommendations for new global public policies, for the global Internet economy also in the competition policy arena broadly speaking.

But, I am more than a little unclear, OK I am seriously confused, if you now are suggesting ICANN should weigh in and be a place that can set that level of competition policy. In a hypothetical future out-of-California state? 

I suggest we are confounding levels of political, and regulatory authority, if we are suggesting that ICANN should substitute, or even have a place at the table, with competition policy matters before the WTO, OECD, TPP, and Indian, Chinese, French, EU, and US governments - to just list the competition policy/regulatory arenas I am aware of where Google practices are in question, there might be more.

To end on a positive/speculative note, if you are suggesting a new UDRP-like arrangement whereby ICANN provides/channels multi-stakeholder input into say WTO/EU?/national competition policy inquiries...well, that would be - different : )

Lee

________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:29 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....

On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>>   Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.
>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...
>
> Hi Guru,
>
> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge.

Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable
issues/challenges.  the challenge of gaming is obvious and I have no
doubt it needs to be and can be  addressed.

By the same logic, free and open source software should have the maximum
viruses since it the source code is freely available. Paradoxically,
while Windows is plagued with viruses, GNU/Linux is not. One of the
reasons given is that, the open source allows many people to study and
identify issues and help resolve it... whereas this is not possible with
proprietary software.

Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has dangerous
public interest implications - we really dont know what is hidden in the
code used by millions of users and how it may have malignant code that
can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know how many US IT
companies are hand in glove with the USG) political interest of its
masters.? If yes,  then you need to think of a public interest based
response to this ...  the ball is in your court as well..

Guru

> Best,
>
> 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Mon Mar 17 12:45:34 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:45:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
	<6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Suresh,

Parminder wrote: "no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring
themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public
policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their
legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political
process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present
(their improvement being a different strand of political work)."

That seems to me to be a clear position, irrespective of whether one agrees
with it or not.

You countered that "the majority of civil society and other stakeholders
have already agreed upon [another position]".

I was (and am) not clear which other position this is, who supports it and
how it differs from Parminder's position.

That's it.

Andrea
Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy
discussion?

--srs (iPad)

On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:

I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I
was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus
on "multi-stakeholderism".

Andrea
On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong
> disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> Suresh,
>
> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
> of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
> precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
> ones?) have agreed to?
>
> Sorry if I missed something.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not
>> become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what
>> the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed
>> upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>
>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
>> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
>> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>     Parminder,
>>
>>  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>> Thanks for this effort.
>>>
>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>>> decision making on public policy issues...
>>>
>>
>>  I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
>> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their
>> formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or
>> the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
>> context.)
>>
>>
>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us
>> have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>
>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors,
>> nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have
>> a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
>> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their
>> collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much
>> ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
>> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>
>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think
>> that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a
>> business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming
>> from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual
>> decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and
>> associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>
>>
>>   Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government
>> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in
>> some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if
>> so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be
>> clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the
>> beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors
>> before extending to other domains of governance?
>>
>>  I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
>> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
>> them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
>> policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
>> And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>
>>  If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of
>> the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid
>> to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
>> unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>
>>
>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>
>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
>>> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to
>>> know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would
>>> no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
>>> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
>>> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
>>> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>
>>
>>  Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
>> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
>> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
>> expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
>> transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
>> guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
>> proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
>> apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
>> announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
>> transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
>> other stakeholders.
>>
>>  Mawaki
>>
>>
>>>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN,
>>> in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>
>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
>>> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>>>
>>> Thanks, parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    Dear All,
>>>
>>>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>  ---
>>>
>>>  IGC Draft Press Release
>>>
>>>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>>> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>>> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
>>> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
>>> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
>>> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
>>> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
>>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>>> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>>> proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
>>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
>>> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
>>> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
>>> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
>>> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
>>> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
>>> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
>>> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
>>> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
>>> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
>>> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>>> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
>>> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
>>> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
>>> Internet's domain name system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>
>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/8d643e8c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 17 12:57:04 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:27:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net> <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net>

Hi Stephanie

Just to clarify three points...
On Friday 14 March 2014 09:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult 
> question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs.   
>  I am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no 
> question it could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the 
> Internet and the modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is 
> exactly the kind of envigoration it needs.

I have no doubt that the new communicative paradigm centred on the 
Internet will fundamentally transform the practice (not the principles) 
of democracy. In fact, we know that there are movements ranging from 
European cities, to Philippines, to India to the US to streets of Brazil 
that represent a strong disenchantment with the manner political parties 
system operates today... And many alternative forms and practices are 
taking shape... But none of these resembles what we know as 
multistakeholderism in the IG space... Does this say something? In fact, 
all new democracy forms, no doubt incipient and experimental yet, are 
very wary of power of big business and voice strong opposition to it, 
much less like IG's MSism hug it fondly and offer it special political 
legitimacy... I challenge the IG MS-ist to bring one grassroots 
participatory democratic movement to endorse its pro big business 
formulae. And I am serious. please do take me on this challenge. So, 
lets not employ the global dissatisfaction with performance of 
governance institutions today towards remedies that are worse than the 
illness. Yes democracy needs spine-stiffening, and perhaps more, but 
that would take place in the heat and dust of the streets where popular 
movements build, not in the MSists ivory towers.

>  This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder 
> model has appeal for many of us.  I will read your materials and 
> respond more thoughtfully, 

Look forward, thanks,
> but I would point out one thing...managing a global entity in a 
> multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away from the 
> nation state. 

Must also make it clear that I am no special fan of nation states... I 
understand it to be a particular political formulation that arise in the 
post feudal industrial age scene... And with the information/Internet 
age its legitimacy as well as boundaries are strained... Nothing wrong 
with it. However, tenets of democracy and political equality of all 
people is sacrosanct, And MSism militates against them,


>  The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, 
> free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, 
> employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious 
> freedom, privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is 
> already a challenge.  Some states are doing this more effectively than 
> others....I would point to the EU, who have in some respects higher 
> agricultural standards, more uniform data protection, and harmonized 
> e-commerce regulations than we do in North America, in my humble 
> opinion.  (this may start a storm of controversy on the list, please 
> resist the temptation, I am just trying to point out efforts to 
> continue to assert the power to regulate, not really trying to say the 
> EU is better.)  The point about the Internet, is it is a key enabler 
> in helping us get to whatever stage of global cooperation and human 
> development we are capable, as deeply flawed humans, of achieving.

Yes, precisely becuase the Internet is so important, it needs to be 
regulated well, like other areas that you point out... And I believe 
that finally, democratic regulation is the best one. Mostly, where 
democracies begin to fail, regulations becomes worse, and I may dare 
suggest that this could be a problem with North America vis a vis EU... 
So, lets seek global democracy for best global regulation.

parminder


> More later.
> Stephanie
> On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> Dear Stephanie,
>>
>> I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in 
>> policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken 
>> that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? 
>> (More on agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or 
>> MSism later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental 
>> 'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which 
>> cannot easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is most 
>> important. Last year, I wrote a blog 
>> <http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy> 
>> where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
>> democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted 
>> that are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy 
>> makers...
>>
>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for 
>> instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several 
>> others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for 
>> instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 
>> 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you 
>> on your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such 
>> equality of all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat 
>> for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.
>>
>> Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
>> strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' 
>> expressed in this fashion not a threat to democracy?
>>
>> Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is 
>> certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need 
>> to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred 
>> democratic lines 
>> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300>'.
>>
>> I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in 
>> the High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality 
>> of all stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real 
>> negotiations begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regu!
>>>   lation mak
>>> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
>>>    stands to
>>>   be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
>>> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>
>>>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
>>>>
>>>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>>>
>>>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>>>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>>>> So who's able?
>>>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>>>
>>>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>>>
>>>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>
>>>> All of this is really going insane.
>>>>
>>>> Michael is so right
>>>>
>>>> JC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org;bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement atbestbits.net  <http://bestbits.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As suchCGI.Br  <http://CGI.Br>  does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Membership ofCGI.br  <http://CGI.br>  is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net  <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself:https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations -CGI.Br  <http://CGI.Br>  Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br  <http://CGI.Br>  doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, seehttp://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director,
>>>>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box
>>>>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director, association
>>>>>>>>> for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/203f66f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 13:21:20 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:51:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com> <D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F8426275-8538-435F-AEB5-49A22E2152B8@hserus.net>

It depends on actual public policy. As I recall it, he was against industry being consulted in decisions that involve them, and had several questions abou the whether the role of cgi.br was actually policy making or consultative in nature.

These are hairs to split but there does appear to be a fundamental set of differences.

Other statements made in the thread about google and competition policy lead me to believe that he feels involving industry in any capacity at all would be iniquitous.

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 22:15, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> Suresh,
> 
> Parminder wrote: "no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work)."
> 
> That seems to me to be a clear position, irrespective of whether one agrees with it or not.
> 
> You countered that "the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon [another position]".
> 
> I was (and am) not clear which other position this is, who supports it and how it differs from Parminder's position.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Andrea
> 
> Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy discussion?
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>> 
>> I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus on "multi-stakeholderism".
>> 
>> Andrea
>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>>> 
>>> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Suresh,
>>>> 
>>>> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry if I missed something.
>>>> 
>>>> Best, 
>>>> 
>>>> Andrea
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>>> Parminder,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for this effort. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration                                                     (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/c18d1404/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 17 13:24:12 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:24:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <532702D4.9060005@apc.org>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com> <532702D4.9060005@apc.org>
Message-ID: <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>

Dear Anriette and Mawaki,

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> [2014-03-17 10:12:36]:
> Good points Mawaki.  And good statement too.  I do think that in this
> paragraph you capture what many, if not most of us, understand by
> inclusive policy making/multi-stakeholder participation in policy making.

I'm not very sure about this.  What Mawaki describes is consultative and 
inclusive policymaking.  In this, relevant actors and stakeholders are 
*consulted* by the policymaker and their views are used in policy 
formulation.  These stakeholders are *not* regarded as "co-equals" at 
the policy table since they do not jointly make the decision.  It seems 
to me that there is a big difference between consultative and inclusive 
policymaking (e.g., the government issuing white papers and green papers 
and holding consultations, putting up the submissions, issuing a 
reasoned decision at the end of it, etc.) and treating stakeholders as 
co-decision-makers.

On the NCSG mailing list, I recently asked (in response to Milton's 
submission to NetMundial, in which he uses the term "co-equal"):

  * Governments, through votes or through other means, have gained 
political legitimacy to represent their nation-state.

  * Intergovernmental organizations claim political legitimacy by being 
membership-driven aggregations of these nation-states, and seek to 
espouse the 'global' point of view (and do a poor job of it, very often).

  * Business and technical organizations claim political legitimacy both 
by having historically been in control of this network of networks, and 
by the fact that there is no way possible for its continued operation 
without them.

  * Where do civil society actors (and academics), especially those many 
of us who *aren't membership organizations and don't have grassroot 
networks* to back us, get our political legitimacy from?  What answer 
should we give when asked, "Who died and made you king/queen/boss/co-equal?"


-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/47514137/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 17 13:25:51 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:55:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8aggp5e2U1BOh4xkDjDwY9_wMebd1G1=EyC7CLaD6G=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8aggp5e2U1BOh4xkDjDwY9_wMebd1G1=EyC7CLaD6G=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5327301F.3000100@itforchange.net>

Mawaki

A minor point, reg the following part of the statement

"in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward the 
privatization of the DNS administration. "

Private has very different meaning in North America (as non gov) then in 
the rest of the world (meaning business)... So can you say it in a 
manner as if we are not saying it but quoting the Americans

like

"in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward, what 
was called in the NTIA 1988 white paperas, the privatization of the DNS 
administration."


Thanks

parminder


On Monday 17 March 2014 07:08 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please find the current draft below. Please make sure to propose 
> actual wording if you're not happy with any passage of this text. I 
> might not be able at this point to digest lengthy comments and capture 
> the gist into a sentence or two that will satisfy you.
>
> Also, I wanted to note that this may not be an actual "press release" 
> but an IGC statement. Why do you folks think? Have we done press 
> releases before, and does that suit the current situation?
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications 
> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to 
> relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet 
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key 
> Internet domain name functions.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and 
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of 
> the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a 
> governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC 
> particularly acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of 
> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in 
> the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward the 
> privatization of the DNS administration.
>
> Supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN 
> and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition 
> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for 
> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet 
> while continuously improving not only on its security but also on its 
> safety for all users around the globe.
>
> Whereas the Caucus recognizes that the structures that develop 
> protocols and set technical standards for the Internet play and will 
> continue to play an essential role, we also note that it is equally 
> crucial for the future arrangements to be inclusive of, and give 
> effective consideration to, the concerns and views of Internet users, 
> citizens and civil society organizations across the world, in 
> developed as well as in developing regions.
>
> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the 
> extent that it is meant to be inclusive, bottom-up and consensus 
> driven and, as such, it enhances democracy by seeking further 
> participation from all people potentially impacted by its decision 
> outcomes. It is our constant concern to make sure the term 
> ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-intergovernmental’ or 
> ‘private sector led’ but is rather positively open to embrace and 
> actualize a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
> Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role, 
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the 
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to 
> be truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be 
> subject to one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally 
> recognized legal mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate 
> accountability instruments should be carefully designed for the new 
> governance institution.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/57dd5396/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Mon Mar 17 13:46:19 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:46:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <F8426275-8538-435F-AEB5-49A22E2152B8@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
	<6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8426275-8538-435F-AEB5-49A22E2152B8@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+ZpVKF0ch98KS46+yNWX4f4RRmoGZWfkU_Podq0Qk9W9w@mail.gmail.com>

Suresh,

On Monday, March 17, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> It depends on actual public policy. As I recall it, he was against
> industry being consulted in decisions that involve them, and had several
> questions abou the whether the role of cgi.br was actually policy making
> or consultative in nature.
>
> These are hairs to split but there does appear to be a fundamental set of
> differences.
>
> Other statements made in the thread about google and competition policy
> lead me to believe that he feels involving industry in any capacity at all
> would be iniquitous.
>
>
> --srs (iPad)
>

I'm sorry to insist but either I'm not making myself clear or I'm not
understanding your reactions.

I'm not very much interested in discussing Parminder's position, for the
simple fact that I find it very clear. Whether I agree with it or not is
another matter and not the topic of my email.

What I'm interested in is the "other position" you referred to when
reacting to Parminder: what is precisely this other position and who
supports it.

I'm honestly trying to understand.

Best,

Andrea


>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 22:15, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> Suresh,
>
> Parminder wrote: "no business actors, nether self-selected actors
> declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual
> public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive
> their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal
> political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at
> present (their improvement being a different strand of political work)."
>
> That seems to me to be a clear position, irrespective of whether one
> agrees with it or not.
>
> You countered that "the majority of civil society and other stakeholders
> have already agreed upon [another position]".
>
> I was (and am) not clear which other position this is, who supports it and
> how it differs from Parminder's position.
>
> That's it.
>
> Andrea
> Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy
> discussion?
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I
> was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus
> on "multi-stakeholderism".
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong
> disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
>  Suresh,
>
> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
> of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
> precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
> ones?) have agreed to?
>
> Sorry if I missed something.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not
> become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what
> the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed
> upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>
> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>     Parminder,
>
>

-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/38a1b020/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 13:58:44 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:28:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
	<6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net>
	<CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0ENYWqYjoie=kH0EC+pxoULK1W++4aNVxPbAZJhv_dn_w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrea Gloriso,

This thought of separating Business and Government from Civil Society
actors is a good thought. My question is: Is there a strict separation and
airtight compartmentalization in real life?

Every one is a 'civilian', even a Military General, who has a home, who is
a citizen, who has day to day needs, who is himself subjected to civil
laws, for e.g. while driving traveling by passenger aircraft or while out
shopping. Businesspersons are not eternally in pursuit of profit on top of
profit, all Businesspersons have a home, are members of the Society, and
invariably seek a higher pursuit. If Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or
the Dorabji Tata Trust or Warren Buffet (who gave away billions to a
foundation) expresses concerns in public interest, it is not to taken as a
statement in pursuit of business profits. If a Lawyer who heads a law firm
that makes profits, or a Doctor who owns a hospital is concerned about
social issues, he or she can not be excluded from Civil Society forums.

By a rigid definition, if we are to adopt one, who would you identify as
Civil Society actors? Men and Women who have no other role or a "Day Job"
except that of the role of a Civil Society actor? Or restrict it only to
employees of a formally registered NGO or Non-Profit entity? If this were
to be the degree of rigidity, even that would not be enough, because not
every NGO or Non-Profit that professes concern for social issues can be
deemed completely free of narrow considerations. For e.g. a Commercial
Lobby group or a political lobby group that registers as a Non-Profit or as
an NGO. With such rigidity, "Civil Society" could only embrace only a class
of 'stake-holders' similar to that of a term "career-politics" could
embrace.

My position, as it has expanded with my present level of exposure, with the
little bit of knowledge that came my way, and with the little bit of
judgement that has resulted, is that there are conceptual intricacies in
defining the term "Civil Society" and there are practical difficulties in
implementing such a rigid definition,  for the purpose of debate in the
Internet Governance Caucus. You do have instances of Business actors
purposely masquerading as Civil Society actors, but for every such person,
whose real pursuits could be seen through by the experienced members of
this list, there are ten others with dual or multiple roles, contributing
to the discussions for the good of Internet, with commitment.

​

this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and
> their collectives through some formal political process or formations


How would this list determine if someone actually "derives [his or her]
legitimacy from people"? Perhaps the suggestion here is to limit
participation only to those who are elected by an electorate in their
respective countries???

The definition of the role of the "Civil Society actor" in particular could
only be 'fuzzy'.


Sivasubramanian M


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Andrea Glorioso
<andrea at digitalpolicy.it>wrote:

> Suresh,
>
> Parminder wrote: "no business actors, nether self-selected actors
> declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual
> public policy' 'decision making' -
> ​​
> this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and
> their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how
> much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a
> different strand of political work)."
>
> That seems to me to be a clear position, irrespective of whether one
> agrees with it or not.
>
> You countered that "the majority of civil society and other stakeholders
> have already agreed upon [another position]".
>
> I was (and am) not clear which other position this is, who supports it and
> how it differs from Parminder's position.
>
> That's it.
>
> Andrea
> Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy
> discussion?
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I
> was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus
> on "multi-stakeholderism".
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I
>> hope?
>>
>> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong
>> disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Suresh,
>>
>> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
>> of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
>> precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
>> ones?) have agreed to?
>>
>> Sorry if I missed something.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andrea
>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does
>>> not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is
>>> what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already
>>> agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the
>>> past.
>>>
>>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
>>> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
>>> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>>     Parminder,
>>>
>>>  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mawaki
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this effort.
>>>>
>>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>>>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>>>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>>>> decision making on public policy issues...
>>>>
>>>
>>>  I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
>>> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their
>>> formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or
>>> the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
>>> context.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of
>>> us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors,
>>> nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have
>>> a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
>>> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their
>>> collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much
>>> ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
>>> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>>
>>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think
>>> that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a
>>> business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming
>>> from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual
>>> decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and
>>> associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government
>>> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in
>>> some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if
>>> so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be
>>> clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the
>>> beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors
>>> before extending to other domains of governance?
>>>
>>>  I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
>>> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
>>> them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
>>> policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
>>> And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>>
>>>  If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of
>>> the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid
>>> to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
>>> unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>>
>>>
>>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>>
>>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
>>>> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to
>>>> know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would
>>>> no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>>>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
>>>> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
>>>> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
>>>> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
>>> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
>>> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
>>> expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
>>> transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
>>> guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
>>> proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
>>> apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
>>> announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
>>> transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
>>> other stakeholders.
>>>
>>>  Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN,
>>>> in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>>
>>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions
>>>> do not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>>>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>>>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>>  ---
>>>>
>>>>  IGC Draft Press Release
>>>>
>>>>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications
>>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>>>> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>>>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>>>> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
>>>> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
>>>> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
>>>> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
>>>> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
>>>> “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>>>> IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>>>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>>>> proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
>>>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>>>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
>>>> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>>>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>>>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
>>>> constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced
>>>> to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a
>>>> ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>>>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
>>>> institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
>>>> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
>>>> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
>>>> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
>>>> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>>>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial,
>>>> the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (
>>>> www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it
>>>> includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the
>>>> propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting
>>>> as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the
>>>> coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>
>>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/bf0296b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 17 14:23:37 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:53:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53273DA9.2080903@itforchange.net>


On Monday 17 March 2014 07:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
>
>
> SNIP
>
> For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way to call a form 
> of inclusive policymaking process.

Call it participatory democracy... These are books and books on it, and 
decades of practice all of the world.... Eschew fashions when they could 
suggest dangerous slippages on the very ideal which one want to 
represent fashionably.


> I see stakeholders as part of the people.

Part of people? Meaning? Just say people, wont that do... (other than 
that business is not people, and to get over this problem alone the word 
stakeholders is preferred to people)

> I don't think people need or should need some validation from 
> political parties before they can directly participate in policymaking.

No not at all, They are the ultimate validators. How can they need 
validation? But what has people's sovereignty to do, for instance, with 
the fact that WCIT was being called not open on the ground that Google 
could not vote at par with (however inadequately democratic) governments 
like India, Brazil or Kenya or Netherlands. (Yes, precisely this was 
said repeatedly.)...  I am ready to be explained...


> This may even happen with traditional policymaking issues (the ones 
> that can be easily confined to a national polity) if the elected 
> officials are enlightened enough to constantly consult with the people 
> and the affected groups in their decision making processes.

Here you say ' consult' , in the next line 'voice for policy making', 
later again you speak of voice in policy making....

I repeat, I said three things, and emphasised each, 'formal role, 
'public policies' and 'actual decision making'..... And I am ready to 
discuss the meaning of each of them. I never spoke of consultation, 
voice in policy making and so on.... I firmly believe that everyone has 
to have voice in policy making, and need to be consulted....

I referred this blog earlier to Stephanie that I did on IGF kind of 
institution as version 3 of democracy

http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy 


What more can I say about cardinal significance of consulting and giving 
voice to everyone in a democracy... Therefore, I would like that my view 
may not be mis represented again and again..

My organisation perhaps does more work on participatory democracy and 
the ground level that most organisations here.... We have been involved 
with some very important work pre legislative
processes being carried on in India.... Just to say, please do not 
mistake participatory democracy with IG style MSism which seeks 'full 
parity of all stakeholders'.

> But sticking to political parties or formal processes as the sole 
> source of legitimate voice for policymaking becomes even more 
> problematic on issues where we depend so much on each other across the 
> world. So for me, while the concept and its implementation may not be 
> mature, stable and robust enough to stand all relevant tests, 
> "multistakeholderism" is just an attempt to get people (at least those 
> who are aware among those affected by the policies) to participate in 
> the policymaking in some orderly fashion (i.e. the organizing in 
> stakeholders.)

Yes, this orderly fashion is key... Democracies had always many such 
orderly fashions, trade unions, feminist groups, all kind of civil 
society formulations of so many different kinds, various interest 
groups.... What did MSism add ... well it gave all these one third of 
non gov space, and apportioned the rest equally between big business and 
larger pro business community of technical people invested in specific 
technical organisations.. How did democracy gain here.

As for MSism meaning having formal platforms for consultation, even 
agenda setting, outside the influence of policy makers, pl see my blog 
above... that is the great step forward that IGF should have been, but 
alas... Anyway, it could still be,
>
> Now, I'm not naive. I know this is far from being perfect and the 
> process can be captured and become an instrument for special interests 
> with no much regard for public interest. That's where our focus should 
> be, trying to make sure special interests do not use the mantle of 
> stakeholders to drown out the voice and interests of the people. 
> Granted, that's a tall order. But saying that political parties, 
> elections, or other formal processes are the only way for legitimate 
> representation, the only way to have a voice in the policymaking 
> process is where we will have hard time finding an agreement. Maybe we 
> shouldn't have called that "multistakeholder", maybe the boundaries of 
> stakeholders are ill-conceived and they should be something else, and 
> clearly the checks and balances for "multistakeholderism" leave much 
> to be desired as of now and we still have a lot of work to do, but 
> governments and political parties cannot be the only answer, can they?

A lot of people have been looking at other answers... But the best of 
those efforts do not go through the alleys of big business, which is 
considered a problem rather that a close ally in the quest for 
democraticing our societies.

IN the end, Mawaki, I asked a precise question about a specific kind of 
political function and whether you admitted 'equal roles' regarding it 
(including of course of business) , and so why do you not  answer that 
specific question rather we discuss in general the ills of current 
democratic forms.

parminder
>
>
>     While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding',
>
>
> See my comments/responses above, and the current version of the statement.
>
>     I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders'
>     meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar
>     role as someone coming from a formal political process - called
>     governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of
>     democracy.
>
>
> I hope not.
> Now please let's focus on the statement and finalize it (the broader 
> discussion on MSism will certainly go on, but I personally wish to 
> rest my case with this message.)
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>     parminder
>
>     PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and
>     associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>
>
>
>>     Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
>>     government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this
>>     may have been so in some period in the history of human societies
>>     but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that
>>     such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start
>>     but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and
>>     that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before
>>     extending to other domains of governance?
>>
>>     I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify
>>     public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority
>>     to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are
>>     really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all
>>     stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies
>>     isn't that part of policymaking?
>>
>>     If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role
>>     of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig,
>>     I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions
>>     on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view.
>>     Then shall we go back there again?
>>
>>         This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>>         Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the
>>         decision and complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say
>>         that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1)
>>         whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any
>>         contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>>         independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what
>>         happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of
>>         ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3)
>>         whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN'
>>         and if so, of what nature....
>>
>>
>>     Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision
>>     opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders.
>>     They were in a position and just announced they are willing to
>>     relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an
>>     eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental
>>     arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the
>>     rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which
>>     should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart
>>     from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in
>>     the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered
>>     in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation
>>     and that of all other stakeholders.
>>
>>     Mawaki
>>
>>         And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation
>>         of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>>         Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance
>>         institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and
>>         the such...
>>
>>         Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>         On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>>         Dear All,
>>>
>>>         Please find a draft of the above subject for your
>>>         consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first
>>>         crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm
>>>         cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>
>>>         We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>         ---
>>>
>>>         IGC Draft Press Release
>>>
>>>         On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National
>>>         Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>>         announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has
>>>         played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>>>         Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>         functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the
>>>         final phase of the transition intended from the inception of
>>>         ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system
>>>         (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>
>>>         The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
>>>         and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an
>>>         equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the
>>>         governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a
>>>         particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the
>>>         necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well
>>>         as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above
>>>         transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to
>>>         what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and
>>>         expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
>>>         services”] We also support the four principles put forward
>>>         by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in
>>>         the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>         While acknowledging the primary role of Internet
>>>         organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC
>>>         wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving
>>>         due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical
>>>         and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>>>         IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
>>>         extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy,
>>>         including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in
>>>         the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant
>>>         challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not
>>>         reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is
>>>         rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’
>>>         meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to
>>>         designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that
>>>         fits a truly global governance institution – with a
>>>         constituency and a customer base that actually is global.
>>>         Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be
>>>         found to the concern that while achieving effective
>>>         accountability such institution (to emerge from this
>>>         transition) should not be subject to any one national
>>>         jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>>>         available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming
>>>         NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet
>>>         Governance(www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br>) to
>>>         be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in
>>>         its consultation process for the transition proposal the
>>>         propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes
>>>         of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current
>>>         role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s
>>>         domain name system.
>>>
>>>         The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>
>>>         March xx, 2014.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/08eae1c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 14:24:14 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:24:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
Message-ID: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org>

Dear all

There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session
formats.

Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day
or only on the first day and the last day?

What should the format be of these sessions?

Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?

Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these
focus/main sessions can be built?

Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics
do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?


*Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014*

 

Proposed Overarching Theme: *Connecting Continents for Enhanced
Multistakeholder Internet Governance*

Proposed Sub Themes:

 1. Policies enabling Access
 2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
 3. Internet as engine for growth & development
 4. IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
 5. Enhancing Digital Trust
 6. Internet and Human Rights
 7. Critical Internet Resources
 8. Emerging Issues

 


Thanks

Anriette

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/fbd64677/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 17 14:38:31 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:38:31 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <53274127.9080506@cis-india.org>

Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> [2014-03-16 19:22:42]:
> The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to climb on and demand this transition.

The Snowden leaks gave not just the EC, but the US government too (and 
not to forget the I*s) a convenient excuse for this transition.

> Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on.  Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability" when it comes to such things.  This allows the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without sin."

Do you honestly believe that?

See PE 493.032 - http://goo.gl/quSyBp and PE 474.405 - 
http://goo.gl/6Rj9eb for examples of the EU studies into this.  PE 
493.032 contains a wealth of information about surveillance in EU countries.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/48e6471f/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Mon Mar 17 15:03:40 2014
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:03:40 +0200
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <53274127.9080506@cis-india.org>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org>
 <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
 <53274127.9080506@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <20140317190340.GA4392@tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:38:31PM -0400, Pranesh Prakash (pranesh at cis-india.org) wrote:

> Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> [2014-03-16 19:22:42]:
 
> >Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance
> >activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and
> >contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going
> >on. Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of
> >trust."

I can't argue with "should" but I think chances of that actually
happening are about as likely as Crimean election being fair
or the Moon turning into cheese.

> >Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not
> >itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has
> >"plausible deniability" when it comes to such things. This allows
> >the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without
> >sin."

> Do you honestly believe that?

I actually believe that EU _qua_ EU does not itself take on
significant surveillance activities, if only because EU members
distrust each other too much, and I agree EU isn't really a government
either - but for that very reason it also can't really act as one:
Who or what would be casting the first stone if "EU" were to do it?
EU cannot act in a way that would avoid revealing the "sin" of its
members here (and they all do take on significant surveillance activities
as well as spying on each other, limited only by their abilities).

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/e5768058/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 15:05:43 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:05:43 -0300
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <53274127.9080506@cis-india.org>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
 <53274127.9080506@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uH6TJ=-eYQvt0mX_A6xxy_ENwk1pZRNV7U7N+Z+ATed=w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear David,

I wanted to refer to .IQ instead of .PS. Thank you for your e-mail, which
showed me I was wrong.

.IQ: Mayer-Schoenberger, Viktor and Ziewitz, Malte, Jefferson Rebuffed -
The United States and the Future of Internet Governance (May 2006). KSG
Working Paper No. RWP06-018. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=902374 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.902374

.PS: a case in which IANA respected the governance process of ccTLD:
http://archive.icann.org/en/general/ps-report-22mar00.htm

And as for Sudan:
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/13/what-really-happened-in-dubai/.
The IGP shows how registrars accredited to ICANN can violate the RAA and
discriminate in virtue of jurisdictional orders (i.e.: GoDaddy).

Regards
Diego


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> [2014-03-16 19:22:42]:
>
>  The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to
>> climb on and demand this transition.
>>
>
> The Snowden leaks gave not just the EC, but the US government too (and not
> to forget the I*s) a convenient excuse for this transition.
>
>
>  Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance
>> activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the
>> levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on.  Then we could
>> make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
>> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself
>> take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability"
>> when it comes to such things.  This allows the EU to "throw the first
>> stone," while not really being "without sin."
>>
>
> Do you honestly believe that?
>
> See PE 493.032 - http://goo.gl/quSyBp and PE 474.405 -
> http://goo.gl/6Rj9eb for examples of the EU studies into this.  PE
> 493.032 contains a wealth of information about surveillance in EU countries.
>
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 <http://ufrgs.br>*
diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
Cell # +55-51-8108-1098
Skype: diegocanabarro

*GT Governança Digital*

*Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo (CEGOV)*

Campus do Vale, prédio 43322 - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500
Porto Alegre / RS CEP 91509-900
Fone: +55 51 3308.9860 / 3308.9934 / Site: *www.cegov.ufrgs.br
<http://www.cegov.ufrgs.br/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/ab8a024d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 15:11:36 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
 <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
 <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
 <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
 <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu>
 <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>
 <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
 <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca> <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjAqp3sFrEydwb5c7Eknq85Zpbetmde82oWZM54EC0YvQ@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clarify one point:


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Hi Stephanie
>
> Just to clarify three points...
> On Friday 14 March 2014 09:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult
> question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs.    I am
> not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no question it could
> use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the Internet and the modern
> phenomenon of social media campaigns is exactly the kind of envigoration it
> needs.
>
>
> I have no doubt that the new communicative paradigm centred on the Internet
> will fundamentally transform the practice (not the principles) of democracy.
> In fact, we know that there are movements ranging from European cities, to
> Philippines, to India to the US to streets of Brazil that represent a strong
> disenchantment with the manner political parties system operates today...
> And many alternative forms and practices are taking shape... But none of
> these resembles what we know as multistakeholderism in the IG space... Does
> this say something? In fact, all new democracy forms, no doubt incipient and
> experimental yet, are very wary of power of big business and voice strong
> opposition to it, much less like IG's MSism hug it fondly and offer it
> special political legitimacy... I challenge the IG MS-ist to bring one
> grassroots participatory democratic movement to endorse its pro big business
> formulae. And I am serious. please do take me on this challenge.

There is no pro- big business formulae" involved, it is a pro-Civil
Society "formulae", perhaps that is why so many on this list support
it!




-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 17 15:15:03 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:15:03 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <B0DE1B2846F747D5823038BBF20CA286@Toshiba>

Hi Suresh,

I think we are a long way from a consensus here that multistakeholderism is the one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance, and a number of people have posted there reservations about that here.

Where there might be a rough consensus – and I hope so – is for multistakeholderism to look after the IANA functions which are largely technical and, despite over a decade of debate because of the iconic USG role, perfectly suitable for management within the the technical organisations with multistakeholder involvement in final authorisation.

But I dont think you will ever convince me that multi-stakeholderism as practiced in ICANN is a good model for cybercrime for instance, or that a cyber-criminal stakeholder constituency should be established as part of consensus decision making. Clearly there are some areas where greater governmental involvement is necessary.

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:06 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea Glorioso 
Cc: Mawaki Chango ; Parminder 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?

Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.

--srs (iPad)

On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:


  Suresh,

  I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?

  Sorry if I missed something. 

  Best,  

  Andrea

  On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

    Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.

    Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.

    --srs (iPad)

    On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



      On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:

        Parminder,

        Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.



        On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


          Mawaki

          Thanks for this effort. 

          As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues... 

        I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.) 

      Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...

      Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.

      While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.

      parminder 

      PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.



        Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?  

        I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?

        If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?

          This particular language should therefore be struck out.

          Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature.... 

        Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders.  

        Mawaki

         
          And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..

          Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 

          Thanks, parminder 



          On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:


            Dear All,

            Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.

            We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
            ---

            IGC Draft Press Release

            On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship. 



            The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.



            While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning. 



            Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders. 



            Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system. 



            The Internet Governance Caucus

            March xx, 2014.






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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/f52f6318/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 17 17:21:02 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:21:02 -0400
Subject: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C08995@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <CA+EjHYqSs1Rt19tDSXXkTXyp0WgKXrJX0-JvVdzrfBR0NKrqhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAM9VJk1=VQowHbk49Duk0DvD+r8hcMi4U4FNcSC1UWq3zQOdiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6i1KNH8TnyEnzEy5huPkc0iSnR_AiVaYs-1sMmmEr7MYg@mail.gmail.com>	<929578A0-0FAA-41D9-B8C1-4D16A528C65F@afrinic.net>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642099@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <532626DD.3040601@cis-india.org> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04B42@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <53274127.9080506@cis-india.org> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C08995@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <5327673E.8070206@cis-india.org>

Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> [2014-03-17 17:14:05]:
> I don't think the US needed a convenient excuse for the transition.  Pretty much the opposite -- this was a pragmatic response to an inconvenient set of circumstances.

Snowden allows the NTIA to be a bit more helpless than it otherwise 
would have been when folks like Newt Gingrich and other American 
politicians come baying for its blood backed by the American business 
interests that are lining up to oppose this.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/783969ef/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 20:03:05 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:03:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced intent
 to relinquish role in IANA functions
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki


On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
functions.



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates
the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet
domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that
is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly acknowledges with
satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all
stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent arrangements
completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the
DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the privatization of the DNS.)



IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
citizens and civil society organizations across the world.



Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN
and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.



In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
stakeholders.



Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with
an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that
suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
established for the new global Internet governance institution.


The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/7d7ccc19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 20:15:03 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:15:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN43WA5Zutq7n5iyb7AF1kV8x6BKR0wYH3AgniLfgt-McQ@mail.gmail.com>

Mawaki in the final line I think you intended "governance institution"
without the "Internet"?
Deirdre


On 18 March 2014 00:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
> privatization of the DNS.)
>
>
>
> IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>
>
>
> Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN
> and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving
> and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>
>
>
> In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
> stakeholders.
>
>
>
> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with
> an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that
> suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
> established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/eb0081bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 20:26:25 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:56:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+ZpVKF0ch98KS46+yNWX4f4RRmoGZWfkU_Podq0Qk9W9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+aiWyRErkBRhSCMA2YCpEoBp6zhT13ddYy3d0Jo7+Jjvw@mail.gmail.com> <D7AFF2A7-6E35-4B6A-845B-56EECC8E9B13@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+YtusyQd5gJ3L4KaUHGb5vOWok1PZ=JQuPu5P6ZGjfiHQ@mail.gmail.com> <F8426275-8538-435F-AEB5-49A22E2152B8@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+ZpVKF0ch98KS46+yNWX4f4RRmoGZWfkU_Podq0Qk9W9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CEA8FD7B-694C-468C-ADE9-96F2A03A29AB@hserus.net>

Multistakeholderism with industry, government and civil society being engaged with not treated as an adversary on general principles.

A policy of not according primacy to any one of the stakeholders, or demanding a stake for the sake of a stake as opposed to a genuine desire to participate in a shared process 

Policy advocacy rather than political maneuvring

When I assume consensus here, it is because a majority of this caucus does exhibit these traits above and evidences them in their submissions, and in their interaction with other stakeholder groups.

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 23:16, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> Suresh,
> 
>> On Monday, March 17, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> It depends on actual public policy. As I recall it, he was against industry being consulted in decisions that involve them, and had several questions abou the whether the role of cgi.br was actually policy making or consultative in nature.
>> 
>> These are hairs to split but there does appear to be a fundamental set of differences.
>> 
>> Other statements made in the thread about google and competition policy lead me to believe that he feels involving industry in any capacity at all would be iniquitous.
>> 
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
> 
> I'm sorry to insist but either I'm not making myself clear or I'm not understanding your reactions. 
> 
> I'm not very much interested in discussing Parminder's position, for the simple fact that I find it very clear. Whether I agree with it or not is another matter and not the topic of my email. 
> 
> What I'm interested in is the "other position" you referred to when reacting to Parminder: what is precisely this other position and who supports it. 
> 
> I'm honestly trying to understand. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Andrea
>  
>> 
>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 22:15, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Suresh,
>>> 
>>> Parminder wrote: "no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work)."
>>> 
>>> That seems to me to be a clear position, irrespective of whether one agrees with it or not.
>>> 
>>> You countered that "the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon [another position]".
>>> 
>>> I was (and am) not clear which other position this is, who supports it and how it differs from Parminder's position.
>>> 
>>> That's it.
>>> 
>>> Andrea
>>> 
>>> Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy discussion?
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus on "multi-stakeholderism". 
>>>> 
>>>> Andrea
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>>>> 
>>>> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suresh,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry if I missed something.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best, 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>>> Parminder,
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/1cdab01b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 20:32:30 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:02:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <B0DE1B2846F747D5823038BBF20CA286@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <6D242A93-74FD-418A-A18C-88DB93643B6C@hserus.net> <CAOLD2+b-7OYNODQWEkSfoUqvj9owM2nAXFABOBJtEnqjP2r4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <646FD4D3-8D82-417D-A3DD-40A5547AE291@hserus.net> <B0DE1B2846F747D5823038BBF20CA286@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <9D8E66BD-BBC0-48AC-9057-4A3805831C62@hserus.net>

I have spent enough time on cybercrime issues to realize that multistakeholderism and the knocking down of silos is essential there.  No stakeholder group acknowledges primacy as such across the board, but does defer to other stakeholder groups, and consults with them, where appropriate. And each stakeholder group takes the lead in actions clearly within their sphere of influence, while if possible acting as an enabler / facilitator for other for other fields.

Engaging with cyber criminals is, as you say, nonsense, but for example in spam filtering you would see the large email providers engage with the marketing industry to work out a code of practice where marketers can be educated so as not to engage in practices that are wholly inappropriate on email and social media where they may be accepted in paper junk mail.

--srs (iPad)

> On 18-Mar-2014, at 0:45, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh,
>  
> I think we are a long way from a consensus here that multistakeholderism is the one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance, and a number of people have posted there reservations about that here.
>  
> Where there might be a rough consensus – and I hope so – is for multistakeholderism to look after the IANA functions which are largely technical and, despite over a decade of debate because of the iconic USG role, perfectly suitable for management within the the technical organisations with multistakeholder involvement in final authorisation.
>  
> But I dont think you will ever convince me that multi-stakeholderism as practiced in ICANN is a good model for cybercrime for instance, or that a cyber-criminal stakeholder constituency should be established as part of consensus decision making. Clearly there are some areas where greater governmental involvement is necessary.
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:06 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea Glorioso
> Cc: Mawaki Chango ; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
>  
> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>  
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>> 
>> Suresh,
>> 
>> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?
>> 
>> Sorry if I missed something.
>> 
>> Best, 
>> 
>> Andrea
>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>>  
>>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>> Parminder,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for this effort. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
>>>>>  
>>>>> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.)
>>>> 
>>>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>>> 
>>>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder 
>>>> 
>>>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance? 
>>>>>  
>>>>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>>>>  
>>>>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>>>>  
>>>>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>>>  
>>>>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/5028683b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Mar 17 21:49:23 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (stephanie perrin)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 01:49:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <532702D4.9060005@apc.org>
 <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <3f01a09d-b5aa-4495-b559-49693cad6917@SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/45fd4971/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar 17 22:01:56 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:31:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <3f01a09d-b5aa-4495-b559-49693cad6917@SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <532702D4.9060005@apc.org>
 <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>
 <3f01a09d-b5aa-4495-b559-49693cad6917@SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <144d2ec6680.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

That is where stakeholders who make a meaningful contribution as opposed to 
steak holders who demand a stake just because comes into the picture.


On 18 March 2014 7:20:03 am stephanie perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> The final question you ask is one I ask myself every time I go to open my 
> mouth. No good answer yet, we need more accountability.
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>
> From: Pranesh Prakash
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Mawaki Chango; 
> parminder
> Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
>
> the NTIA announcement of March 14
>
> Dear Anriette and Mawaki,
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> [2014-03-17 10:12:36]:
> > Good points Mawaki.  And good statement too.  I do think that in this
> > paragraph you capture what many, if not most of us, understand by
> > inclusive policy making/multi-stakeholder participation in policy making.
>
> I'm not very sure about this.  What Mawaki describes is consultative and
> inclusive policymaking.  In this, relevant actors and stakeholders are
> *consulted* by the policymaker and their views are used in policy
> formulation.  These stakeholders are *not* regarded as "co-equals" at
> the policy table since they do not jointly make the decision.  It seems
> to me that there is a big difference between consultative and inclusive
> policymaking (e.g., the government issuing white papers and green papers
> and holding consultations, putting up the submissions, issuing a
> reasoned decision at the end of it, etc.) and treating stakeholders as
> co-decision-makers.
>
> On the NCSG mailing list, I recently asked (in response to Milton's
> submission to NetMundial, in which he uses the term "co-equal"):
>
> * Governments, through votes or through other means, have gained
> political legitimacy to represent their nation-state.
>
> * Intergovernmental organizations claim political legitimacy by being
> membership-driven aggregations of these nation-states, and seek to
> espouse the 'global' point of view (and do a poor job of it, very often).
>
> * Business and technical organizations claim political legitimacy both
> by having historically been in control of this network of networks, and
> by the fact that there is no way possible for its continued operation
> without them.
>
> * Where do civil society actors (and academics), especially those many
> of us who *aren't membership organizations and don't have grassroot
> networks* to back us, get our political legitimacy from?  What answer
> should we give when asked, "Who died and made you king/queen/boss/co-equal?"
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/6ae5a272/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 22:19:10 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:19:10 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN43WA5Zutq7n5iyb7AF1kV8x6BKR0wYH3AgniLfgt-McQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN43WA5Zutq7n5iyb7AF1kV8x6BKR0wYH3AgniLfgt-McQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC5qyUhX+mb=jLBvJaPmzkQvPPD_oaEtf0W1aBJr+BmPg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mawaki, De, Ian, Suresh et al,

I am attaching my comments on the final draft and have edited it a bit.
Tracked changes are shown in the version attached for your records.
Apologies for the delayed response - just recovered from the dengue and was
on bereavement leave. Really great to see the comments coming through.

Here are some comments and thoughts on the matter.

Best,
Sala


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mawaki in the final line I think you intended "governance institution"
> without the "Internet"?
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 18 March 2014 00:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>>
>>
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>
>>
>>
>> IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN
>> and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving
>> and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
>> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
>> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>> stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with
>> an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that
>> suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
>> established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/5c900973/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Tracked edits on Final Draft Statement by Mawaki and IGC_ST.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/5c900973/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 17 23:12:01 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:42:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <D02FD7BD30134C3F994DF60F146C85F8@well.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com> <532702D4.9060005@apc.org> <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org> <3f01a09d-b5aa-4495-b559-49693cad6917@SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <144d2ec6680.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <8CFF062661A740178841E948CEB774B7@well.com> <D02FD7BD30134C3F994DF60F146C85F8@well.com>
Message-ID: <21E3BF38-9DD0-482F-B9D4-D5BDB967BEA4@hserus.net>

Oh, stay on the list. You are a lot more useful to have around than some others.

--srs (iPad)

> On 18-Mar-2014, at 8:37, Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks like I unsubscribed a moment too soon. :)
> 
> 
>> From: SYMPA <sympa at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To: declan at well.com
>> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 8:00:45 PM
>> Subject: Message distribution: Authorization denied
>> 
>> Your message for list 'governance' (attached below) was rejected.
>> You are not allowed to send this message for the following reason:
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 17 23:19:54 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:49:54 +0530
Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response
 to the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <8CFF062661A740178841E948CEB774B7@well.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <532702D4.9060005@apc.org>
 <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>
 <3f01a09d-b5aa-4495-b559-49693cad6917@SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <144d2ec6680.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <8CFF062661A740178841E948CEB774B7@well.com>
Message-ID: <144d333cfc0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Forwarding Declan's email on.


--- Forwarded message ---
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
Date: 18 March 2014 8:33:53 am
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to 
the NTIA announcement of March 14
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
CC: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>, Mawaki Chango 
<kichango at gmail.com>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>, stephanie 
perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>

On Monday, March 17, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> That is where stakeholders who make a meaningful contribution as opposed to 
> steak holders who demand a stake just because comes into the picture.


I’m delurking for a moment as I’m unsubscribing to say that Suresh, as 
usual, has the right of the argument. Y’all should listen to him more often. :)

-Declan

PS: I’m unsubscribing because I’ve left CNET/CBS to start my own company 
and build a news recommendation engine:
https://plus.google.com/+DeclanMcCullagh/posts/irxgjD4u4tt

Y’all can sign up for the beta, and be delivered lots of tasty Internet 
governance news, here:
http://recent.io/





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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 00:06:28 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:36:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC5qyUhX+mb=jLBvJaPmzkQvPPD_oaEtf0W1aBJr+BmPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN43WA5Zutq7n5iyb7AF1kV8x6BKR0wYH3AgniLfgt-McQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiC5qyUhX+mb=jLBvJaPmzkQvPPD_oaEtf0W1aBJr+BmPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BC02033C-3195-4DD0-AAE6-5410D29C6681@hserus.net>

I welcome your edits, Sala - would you also consider adding some text to state what value civil society can contribute to this process?

Neutrality, Disinterested (in the good sense of the term) policy expertise etc.

--srs (iPad)

> On 18-Mar-2014, at 7:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mawaki, De, Ian, Suresh et al,
> 
> I am attaching my comments on the final draft and have edited it a bit. Tracked changes are shown in the version attached for your records. Apologies for the delayed response - just recovered from the dengue and was on bereavement leave. Really great to see the comments coming through.
> 
> Here are some comments and thoughts on the matter.
> 
> Best,
> Sala
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mawaki in the final line I think you intended "governance institution" without the "Internet"?
>> Deirdre
>> 
>> 
>>> On 18 March 2014 00:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.
>>>  
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the privatization of the DNS.)
>>>  
>>> IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>  
>>> Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>>  
>>> In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
>>>  
>>> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>> 
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>> March xx, 2014.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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
> 
> <Tracked edits on Final Draft Statement by Mawaki and IGC_ST.docx>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/76827a49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 18 00:19:42 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:19:42 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <BC02033C-3195-4DD0-AAE6-5410D29C6681@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN43WA5Zutq7n5iyb7AF1kV8x6BKR0wYH3AgniLfgt-McQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiC5qyUhX+mb=jLBvJaPmzkQvPPD_oaEtf0W1aBJr+BmPg@mail.gmail.com> <BC02033C-3195-4DD0-AAE6-5410D29C6681@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <9973F9F4-7B15-43FB-B440-330159FB6FBC@glocom.ac.jp>

And were responding to NTIA's proposal for a process to transition the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community, not to "relinquish its oversight role of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)" 

Best,

Adam



On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> I welcome your edits, Sala - would you also consider adding some text to state what value civil society can contribute to this process?
> 
> Neutrality, Disinterested (in the good sense of the term) policy expertise etc.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 18-Mar-2014, at 7:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Mawaki, De, Ian, Suresh et al,
>> 
>> I am attaching my comments on the final draft and have edited it a bit. Tracked changes are shown in the version attached for your records. Apologies for the delayed response - just recovered from the dengue and was on bereavement leave. Really great to see the comments coming through.
>> 
>> Here are some comments and thoughts on the matter.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Sala
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mawaki in the final line I think you intended "governance institution" without the "Internet"?
>> Deirdre
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 March 2014 00:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>> 
>> 
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.
>>  
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the privatization of the DNS.)
>>  
>> IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>  
>> Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>  
>> In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
>>  
>> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>> 
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>> March xx, 2014.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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
>> 
>> 
>> <Tracked edits on Final Draft Statement by Mawaki and IGC_ST.docx>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Tue Mar 18 00:21:22 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:21:22 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <9973F9F4-7B15-43FB-B440-330159FB6FBC@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN43WA5Zutq7n5iyb7AF1kV8x6BKR0wYH3AgniLfgt-McQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiC5qyUhX+mb=jLBvJaPmzkQvPPD_oaEtf0W1aBJr+BmPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BC02033C-3195-4DD0-AAE6-5410D29C6681@hserus.net>
	<9973F9F4-7B15-43FB-B440-330159FB6FBC@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDFVoRKq+16JsMCEw_CWKOw+TVNE4w9-egNiU3wXEpw3A@mail.gmail.com>

I should also add that it should read.."We support"...instead of "we
supportive"...


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> And were responding to NTIA's proposal for a process to transition the
> IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community, not to "relinquish
> its oversight role of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)"
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > I welcome your edits, Sala - would you also consider adding some text to
> state what value civil society can contribute to this process?
> >
> > Neutrality, Disinterested (in the good sense of the term) policy
> expertise etc.
> >
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> > On 18-Mar-2014, at 7:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Mawaki, De, Ian, Suresh et al,
> >>
> >> I am attaching my comments on the final draft and have edited it a bit.
> Tracked changes are shown in the version attached for your records.
> Apologies for the delayed response - just recovered from the dengue and was
> on bereavement leave. Really great to see the comments coming through.
> >>
> >> Here are some comments and thoughts on the matter.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Sala
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mawaki in the final line I think you intended "governance institution"
> without the "Internet"?
> >> Deirdre
> >>
> >>
> >> On 18 March 2014 00:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dear All,
> >> Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.
> >>
> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
> privatization of the DNS.)
> >>
> >> IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
> >>
> >> Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
> >>
> >> In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
> stakeholders.
> >>
> >> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
> >>
> >> The Internet Governance Caucus
> >> March xx, 2014.
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To 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
> >>
> >>
> >> <Tracked edits on Final Draft Statement by Mawaki and IGC_ST.docx>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/61a3e7de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 18 00:23:20 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:23:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>


On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> Dear All,
> Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
> 
> 
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.
>  

why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see that in the 1st paragraph.  

> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the privatization of the DNS.)
>  
> IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>  
> Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>  
> In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
>  


effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?  


> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for the new global Internet governance institution.


"internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"    Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).

Adam



> The Internet Governance Caucus
> March xx, 2014.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Mar 18 03:37:19 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:37:19 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5327F7AF.5070104@cis-india.org>

Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> [2014-03-16 13:37:31]:
> Hello
>
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
> contradict the ideals of democracy???

Yes. A consensus model without a rights framework that safeguards 
minorities can be harmful to minorities.

> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process, open
> for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies
> that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The intention
> behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but as
> unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
> lead to politicization of the process.

You mean to say that Internet governance can be devoid of politics?  I 
don't see how that is either possible nor why that would be desirable.


-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/4cbca293/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Mar 18 03:45:19 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:15:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5327F7AF.5070104@cis-india.org>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com> <5327F7AF.5070104@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <1942CB96-BF3C-45C1-B403-643A3E286C92@hserus.net>

Policy considerations, yes.  Power plays to gain control and "steak instead of stake", and backbiting instead of collegial working together, no definitely not desirable.  

--srs (iPad)

> On 18-Mar-2014, at 13:07, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> [2014-03-16 13:37:31]:
>> Hello
>> 
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>> 
>> 
>> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
>> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
>> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
>> contradict the ideals of democracy???
> 
> Yes. A consensus model without a rights framework that safeguards minorities can be harmful to minorities.
> 
>> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process, open
>> for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies
>> that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The intention
>> behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but as
>> unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>> lead to politicization of the process.
> 
> You mean to say that Internet governance can be devoid of politics?  I don't see how that is either possible nor why that would be desirable.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 05:28:26 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:28:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>

Folks,

I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now going
to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and fully
concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if delivered,
will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On Wednesday (well,
tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and won't be much
available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot from me in
the coming two weeks or so.

Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of comments
and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so, I'd
suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this (in
any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala is
convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?

Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys
burn it down ;)

Thanks for your understanding.

Mawaki



On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
> >
> >
> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.
> >
>
> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
> that in the 1st paragraph.
>
> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
> privatization of the DNS.)
> >
> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
> >
> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
> >
> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
> stakeholders.
> >
>
>
> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>
>
> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>
>
> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"    Judicial?
>  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> > The Internet Governance Caucus
> > March xx, 2014.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/1480e1a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 18 06:08:53 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:08:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
In-Reply-To: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org>
References: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4F021523-9213-4CA0-AC9C-34BD7262B177@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Anriette,

Thanks for asking.  

To be honest, I'm not very clear what the difference is between main sessions and focus sessions -- what was the actual difference in Bali?   

Perhaps the Secretariat and MAG needs to do a better job of bringing the organizers of the various workshops into planning of the focus sessions.  That didn't work well last, mainly I think because we hadn't thought through a new process (and to be honest I don't think 'feeder workshops' have ever worked and are unlikely to, a conference schedule can't permit.)

I think we saw in Bali that topics on current interests work well.  Development, tried yet again, and not satisfactory yet again (if going to do such sessions it must include a majority of developing country participants, and contributors who are development experts rather than well meaning policy geeks.)

Did ypu find the policy questions helpful?  Were they addressed in the sessions and did they add anything?  I'm not sure they were widely used in most sessions.  They seemed to be used as a bit of an after thought.  

Of the themes, suggest it would be helpful to leave a large block of time (50%) to address NETmundial outcomes and what we are learning from other processes.  By mid-summer we'll have an idea of what's going into ITU plenipot, WSIS etc.  React to what's happening rather than more on the same old themes.

What does the overarching theme mean?  Too many vague sub-themes, they provide little or no guidance to those submitting workshop proposals, and no help to MAG when assessing what's relevant/not.

Adam  



On Mar 18, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session formats.
> 
> Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day or only on the first day and the last day?
> 
> What should the format be of these sessions?
> 
> Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?
> 
> Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these focus/main sessions can be built?
> 
> Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?
> 
> 
> Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014
> 
>  
> Proposed Overarching Theme: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance
> 
> Proposed Sub Themes:
> 
> 	• Policies enabling Access
> 	• Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
> 	• Internet as engine for growth & development
> 	• IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
> 	• Enhancing Digital Trust
> 	• Internet and Human Rights
> 	• Critical Internet Resources
> 	• Emerging Issues
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Anriette
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen 
> anriette at apc.org
> 
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> 
> www.apc.org
> 
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Mar 18 06:24:16 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:24:16 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
References: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org>
 <4F021523-9213-4CA0-AC9C-34BD7262B177@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I agree here with Adam. Kepp the issues open as long as possible so that we can meet all the questions which are coming out from the procceses in April, May (inter aia the Ilves Report) and June (inter aliathe ICANN meeting in London with the high level GAC meeting and the ATLAS II).
 
One idea which worked well in recent EURODIGs are "flash sessions". 30 or 45 minutes presentations by one or two presenters (speaker has no more than 10 (or 2x5) minutes followed by q&a). The subjects of the flash sessions can be defined at a later stage shortly before the meeting. 
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
Gesendet: Di 18.03.2014 11:08
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions



Hi Anriette,

Thanks for asking. 

To be honest, I'm not very clear what the difference is between main sessions and focus sessions -- what was the actual difference in Bali?  

Perhaps the Secretariat and MAG needs to do a better job of bringing the organizers of the various workshops into planning of the focus sessions.  That didn't work well last, mainly I think because we hadn't thought through a new process (and to be honest I don't think 'feeder workshops' have ever worked and are unlikely to, a conference schedule can't permit.)

I think we saw in Bali that topics on current interests work well.  Development, tried yet again, and not satisfactory yet again (if going to do such sessions it must include a majority of developing country participants, and contributors who are development experts rather than well meaning policy geeks.)

Did ypu find the policy questions helpful?  Were they addressed in the sessions and did they add anything?  I'm not sure they were widely used in most sessions.  They seemed to be used as a bit of an after thought. 

Of the themes, suggest it would be helpful to leave a large block of time (50%) to address NETmundial outcomes and what we are learning from other processes.  By mid-summer we'll have an idea of what's going into ITU plenipot, WSIS etc.  React to what's happening rather than more on the same old themes.

What does the overarching theme mean?  Too many vague sub-themes, they provide little or no guidance to those submitting workshop proposals, and no help to MAG when assessing what's relevant/not.

Adam 



On Mar 18, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear all
>
> There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session formats.
>
> Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day or only on the first day and the last day?
>
> What should the format be of these sessions?
>
> Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?
>
> Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these focus/main sessions can be built?
>
> Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?
>
>
> Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014
>
> 
> Proposed Overarching Theme: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance
>
> Proposed Sub Themes:
>
>       * Policies enabling Access
>       * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>       * Internet as engine for growth & development
>       * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
>       * Enhancing Digital Trust
>       * Internet and Human Rights
>       * Critical Internet Resources
>       * Emerging Issues
> 
>
> Thanks
>
> Anriette
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen
> anriette at apc.org
>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
>
> www.apc.org
>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t





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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Mar 18 07:24:59 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:24:59 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org> <4F021523-9213-4CA0-AC9C-34BD7262B177@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <53282D0B.4000709@apc.org>

Dear Adam and Wolfgang (and those who responded offlist)

First, clarification.

'Focus' session is just another term of saying 'main session'. It means
a session in a big room that focuses on one of the IGF's subthemes or
something like 'taking stock'.

The idea of flash sessions is already on the table. Actually the MAG is
talking about the IGF including different and newer formats. Veronica
Cretu has done quite a lot of work on this.  Translating it into
practice is not always so easy, but we are trying.

Some people who were at RightsCon which took place recently also wrote
to me saying they would like the IGF to learn from other large events
when it comes to formats.

And someone else wrote saying we should - as the MAG - be prescriptive
with formats and just let session organisers decide what format they
want to use.

I will share feedback on the overarching theme - which Adam said was
vague, and someone else wrote to me to say it sounded like we were going
to focus on intercontinental submarine cables :)

Do remember that the IGF main theme is generally the outcome of
consensus among MAG members and is usually vague.

One proposal I am thinking of is to have an opening session where we
have a panel that does very brief scene setting on the sub theme of this
year's IGF. This could be 3 hour main session on the first day.  The
panel would give 10 minute inputs on the sub themes followed by
discussion and questions.  Workshop/session organisers can talk about
what they are dealing with in their events related to these  themes.

      * Policies enabling Access
      * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
      * Internet as engine for growth & development
      * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
      * Enhancing Digital Trust
      * Internet and Human Rights
      * Critical Internet Resources
 
I am leaving out emerging issues as it has a different role.


On the last day we can have round tables for each of these subthemes
that gather together workshop/session organisers as well as dynamic
coalitions. These round tables should be tasked with identifying what
intersessional work is needed, and by whom and in which space, to take
discussions at the IGF forward.

To build on Adam's proposal we should have a main session on Net Mundial
outcomes.  We might even want to have two separate main sessions,
depending on what happens at the NetMundial. I like Wolfgang's idea that
we should keep things open at this point, and see what happens later on
in the year before we finalise what main or focus sessions to organised
- or MAG organised sessions as we refer to them to distinguish from all
the community organised sessions like workshops. At least until the May
MAG meeting as by then we will have a clearer idea of what the IGF can
most usefully focus on.

I also like the idea of having flash session topics be finalised later. 
This would be possible I think.

Anriette


On 18/03/2014 12:24, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> I agree here with Adam. Kepp the issues open as long as possible so that we can meet all the questions which are coming out from the procceses in April, May (inter aia the Ilves Report) and June (inter aliathe ICANN meeting in London with the high level GAC meeting and the ATLAS II).
>  
> One idea which worked well in recent EURODIGs are "flash sessions". 30 or 45 minutes presentations by one or two presenters (speaker has no more than 10 (or 2x5) minutes followed by q&a). The subjects of the flash sessions can be defined at a later stage shortly before the meeting. 
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: Di 18.03.2014 11:08
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
>
>
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for asking. 
>
> To be honest, I'm not very clear what the difference is between main sessions and focus sessions -- what was the actual difference in Bali?  
>
> Perhaps the Secretariat and MAG needs to do a better job of bringing the organizers of the various workshops into planning of the focus sessions.  That didn't work well last, mainly I think because we hadn't thought through a new process (and to be honest I don't think 'feeder workshops' have ever worked and are unlikely to, a conference schedule can't permit.)
>
> I think we saw in Bali that topics on current interests work well.  Development, tried yet again, and not satisfactory yet again (if going to do such sessions it must include a majority of developing country participants, and contributors who are development experts rather than well meaning policy geeks.)
>
> Did ypu find the policy questions helpful?  Were they addressed in the sessions and did they add anything?  I'm not sure they were widely used in most sessions.  They seemed to be used as a bit of an after thought. 
>
> Of the themes, suggest it would be helpful to leave a large block of time (50%) to address NETmundial outcomes and what we are learning from other processes.  By mid-summer we'll have an idea of what's going into ITU plenipot, WSIS etc.  React to what's happening rather than more on the same old themes.
>
> What does the overarching theme mean?  Too many vague sub-themes, they provide little or no guidance to those submitting workshop proposals, and no help to MAG when assessing what's relevant/not.
>
> Adam 
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session formats.
>>
>> Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day or only on the first day and the last day?
>>
>> What should the format be of these sessions?
>>
>> Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?
>>
>> Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these focus/main sessions can be built?
>>
>> Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?
>>
>>
>> Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014
>>
>>
>> Proposed Overarching Theme: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance
>>
>> Proposed Sub Themes:
>>
>>       * Policies enabling Access
>>       * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>>       * Internet as engine for growth & development
>>       * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
>>       * Enhancing Digital Trust
>>       * Internet and Human Rights
>>       * Critical Internet Resources
>>       * Emerging Issues
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Anriette
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen
>> anriette at apc.org
>>
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>
>> www.apc.org
>>
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/ff13a4e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 18 07:54:53 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:54:53 +0900
Subject: AW: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
In-Reply-To: <53282D0B.4000709@apc.org>
References: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org> <4F021523-9213-4CA0-AC9C-34BD7262B177@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <53282D0B.4000709@apc.org>
Message-ID: <46E112CD-2FBF-4D58-A0BE-888000E9E03E@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Anriette,

Just one comment below: 


On Mar 18, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear Adam and Wolfgang (and those who responded offlist)
> 
> First, clarification.
> 
> 'Focus' session is just another term of saying 'main session'. It means a session in a big room that focuses on one of the IGF's subthemes or something like 'taking stock'.
> 
> The idea of flash sessions is already on the table. Actually the MAG is talking about the IGF including different and newer formats. Veronica Cretu has done quite a lot of work on this.  Translating it into practice is not always so easy, but we are trying.
> 
> Some people who were at RightsCon which took place recently also wrote to me saying they would like the IGF to learn from other large events when it comes to formats.
> 
> And someone else wrote saying we should - as the MAG - be prescriptive with formats and just let session organisers decide what format they want to use. 
> 
> I will share feedback on the overarching theme - which Adam said was vague, and someone else wrote to me to say it sounded like we were going to focus on intercontinental submarine cables :)
> 
> Do remember that the IGF main theme is generally the outcome of consensus among MAG members and is usually vague.
> 
> One proposal I am thinking of is to have an opening session where we have a panel that does very brief scene setting on the sub theme of this year's IGF. This could be 3 hour main session on the first day.  The panel would give 10 minute inputs on the sub themes followed by discussion and questions.  Workshop/session organisers can talk about what they are dealing with in their events related to these  themes.
> 
>       * Policies enabling Access
>       * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>       * Internet as engine for growth & development
>       * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
>       * Enhancing Digital Trust
>       * Internet and Human Rights
>       * Critical Internet Resources
>  
> I am leaving out emerging issues as it has a different role.
> 
> 
> On the last day we can have round tables for each of these subthemes that gather together workshop/session organisers as well as dynamic coalitions. These round tables should be tasked with identifying what intersessional work is needed, and by whom and in which space, to take discussions at the IGF forward.
> 


Yes, please!  Would be great if this session could kick-off some working groups.  If a session during the week identifies a topic where work's needed, then start working-up a charter and bring that to this final day round-table session for discussion/some agreement?

Adam



> To build on Adam's proposal we should have a main session on Net Mundial outcomes.  We might even want to have two separate main sessions, depending on what happens at the NetMundial. I like Wolfgang's idea that we should keep things open at this point, and see what happens later on in the year before we finalise what main or focus sessions to organised - or MAG organised sessions as we refer to them to distinguish from all the community organised sessions like workshops. At least until the May MAG meeting as by then we will have a clearer idea of what the IGF can most usefully focus on.
> 
> I also like the idea of having flash session topics be finalised later.  This would be possible I think.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 18/03/2014 12:24, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> I agree here with Adam. Kepp the issues open as long as possible so that we can meet all the questions which are coming out from the procceses in April, May (inter aia the Ilves Report) and June (inter aliathe ICANN meeting in London with the high level GAC meeting and the ATLAS II).
>>  
>> One idea which worked well in recent EURODIGs are "flash sessions". 30 or 45 minutes presentations by one or two presenters (speaker has no more than 10 (or 2x5) minutes followed by q&a). The subjects of the flash sessions can be defined at a later stage shortly before the meeting. 
>>  
>> wolfgang
>>  
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: 
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>  im Auftrag von Adam Peake
>> Gesendet: Di 18.03.2014 11:08
>> An: 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> ; Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Cc: &lt,
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>> ,
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Anriette,
>> 
>> Thanks for asking. 
>> 
>> To be honest, I'm not very clear what the difference is between main sessions and focus sessions -- what was the actual difference in Bali?  
>> 
>> Perhaps the Secretariat and MAG needs to do a better job of bringing the organizers of the various workshops into planning of the focus sessions.  That didn't work well last, mainly I think because we hadn't thought through a new process (and to be honest I don't think 'feeder workshops' have ever worked and are unlikely to, a conference schedule can't permit.)
>> 
>> I think we saw in Bali that topics on current interests work well.  Development, tried yet again, and not satisfactory yet again (if going to do such sessions it must include a majority of developing country participants, and contributors who are development experts rather than well meaning policy geeks.)
>> 
>> Did ypu find the policy questions helpful?  Were they addressed in the sessions and did they add anything?  I'm not sure they were widely used in most sessions.  They seemed to be used as a bit of an after thought. 
>> 
>> Of the themes, suggest it would be helpful to leave a large block of time (50%) to address NETmundial outcomes and what we are learning from other processes.  By mid-summer we'll have an idea of what's going into ITU plenipot, WSIS etc.  React to what's happening rather than more on the same old themes.
>> 
>> What does the overarching theme mean?  Too many vague sub-themes, they provide little or no guidance to those submitting workshop proposals, and no help to MAG when assessing what's relevant/not.
>> 
>> Adam 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session formats.
>>> 
>>> Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day or only on the first day and the last day?
>>> 
>>> What should the format be of these sessions?
>>> 
>>> Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?
>>> 
>>> Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these focus/main sessions can be built?
>>> 
>>> Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Proposed Overarching Theme: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance
>>> 
>>> Proposed Sub Themes:
>>> 
>>>       * Policies enabling Access
>>>       * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>>>       * Internet as engine for growth & development
>>>       * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
>>>       * Enhancing Digital Trust
>>>       * Internet and Human Rights
>>>       * Critical Internet Resources
>>>       * Emerging Issues
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Anriette
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen
>>> 
>>> anriette at apc.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> 
>>> 
>>> www.apc.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> 
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> 
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: 
>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 07:58:46 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:58:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjKeiFugRfiJfO+zvP4BmSB1K_d6h-w_6Wnc-iYCss9Kg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Parminder,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Thanks for this effort.
>>
>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>> decision making on public policy issues...
>
>
> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should
> be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal
> or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the
> meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
> context.)
>
>
> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us
> have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...


Fro our statement on NTIA:


"IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy
by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be
affected by its policy decision outcomes."

This is our common understanding.



>
> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether
> self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a
> 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives
> through some formal political process or formations, how much ever
> inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that
> those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business
> owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a
> formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision
> making. THis is death of democracy.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated
> policy work in the manner that it does at present.


So business CAN have a role in public policy as long as it is only
names and numbers?  How about Standards development?

I think this is an incoherent position.


-- 
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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 18 08:47:19 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:47:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] NETmundial registrations - deadlines
Message-ID: <DFD48AF1-9B46-4658-A88C-68AB2A456226@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi everyone.

A reminder that a first round of invitations to attend NETmundial were sent a few days ago and there is a strict deadline for completing the registration form.  

The form is a unique URL for each applicant, I cannot send a link.

It is still not possible to guarantee travel support at this time: if you requested travel support, please complete the registration before the deadline and wait for more instructions about support.  Do not delay registration.  

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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 09:01:15 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:01:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Friends,
I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
days of his life in intensive care.
I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should be
going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
life :-)
I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list
with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to
devote to it?
It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now completing
one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
common position, this is surely the most important function of this
discussion.
it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions
about the planning for the igf.
as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
battery is choosing now to run out ....
best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
deirdre




On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now going
> to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and fully
> concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if delivered,
> will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On Wednesday (well,
> tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and won't be much
> available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot from me in
> the coming two weeks or so.
>
> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of comments
> and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so, I'd
> suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this (in
> any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala is
> convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>
> Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys
> burn it down ;)
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> > Dear All,
>> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>> >
>> >
>> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.
>> >
>>
>> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>
>> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>> privatization of the DNS.)
>> >
>> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>> >
>> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>> >
>> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
>> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
>> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>> stakeholders.
>> >
>>
>>
>> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>
>>
>> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>
>>
>> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"    Judicial?
>>  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Internet Governance Caucus
>> > March xx, 2014.
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/33a69a0b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Mar 18 09:28:36 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:28:36 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com> <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07AEA509-BC4E-4F0A-8539-8377334763DD@Malcolm.id.au>

On 18 Mar 2014, at 5:28 pm, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so, I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer? 

I can't volunteer on this occasion, but just to note that in the meantime a statement based on APC's is available for sign-on here:

http://bestbits.net/ntia-announcement/

Those who don't wish to wait for the IGC statement to be finalised might consider endorsing this one instead (or also).

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/d5281ebb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/d5281ebb/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Mar 18 10:06:55 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:06:55 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5326DB90.9040105@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com> <532702D4.9060005@apc.org> <53272FBC.3070100@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <80B3C291-27D7-4B33-8267-1C3129B1FA98@Malcolm.id.au>

On 18 Mar 2014, at 1:24 am, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> * Where do civil society actors (and academics), especially those many of us who *aren't membership organizations and don't have grassroot networks* to back us, get our political legitimacy from?  What answer should we give when asked, "Who died and made you king/queen/boss/co-equal?"

Simply that the affected stakeholders in Internet governance tend to include transnational communities of interest that are separate from, and not well represented by, nation states.  Sorry to plug my book but pp.152-157 goes into more detail (http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401).

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/8044339c/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From presidencia at internauta.org.ar  Tue Mar 18 13:51:08 2014
From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Sergio Salinas Porto)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:51:08 -0300
Subject: [governance] NETmundial registrations - deadlines
In-Reply-To: <DFD48AF1-9B46-4658-A88C-68AB2A456226@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <DFD48AF1-9B46-4658-A88C-68AB2A456226@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAH5-+WgxRDLk=V4dhGDzbdLvgr5MX-LWnLAue+Ym4BGcMHLu1w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Adan, Thanks for the information!
Kind regards

*Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://ctamdq.org.ar>
FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.fuilatin.org>
facebook:salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> &
sergiosalinasII <http://www.facebook.com/sergiosalinasII>
twitter:sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>
Google+: Sergio Salinas Porto
<https://plus.google.com/104639152443153592254/posts>
Hangout:presidencia at internauta.org.ar
<Hangout%3Apresidencia at internauta.org.ar> /
Pixelhub: salinasporto <http://pixelhub.me/salinasporto>
Youtube: salinasporto <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>
Skype:internautaargentina
Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*

*"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que
humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo
Galeano*



2014-03-18 9:47 GMT-03:00 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:

> Hi everyone.
>
> A reminder that a first round of invitations to attend NETmundial were
> sent a few days ago and there is a strict deadline for completing the
> registration form.
>
> The form is a unique URL for each applicant, I cannot send a link.
>
> It is still not possible to guarantee travel support at this time: if you
> requested travel support, please complete the registration before the
> deadline and wait for more instructions about support.  Do not delay
> registration.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/8f02956f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 14:27:44 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:57:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5327F7AF.5070104@cis-india.org>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>
	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5327F7AF.5070104@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0Gj6KU8GY+3a01eQNh-tMqSg2d7LPRwBTCKYnYqvy7BnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Pranesh,


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> [2014-03-16 13:37:31]:
>
>  Hello
>>
>>  IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that
>>> it
>>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration
>>> to
>>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>>>
>>
>>
>> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
>> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
>> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
>> contradict the ideals of democracy???
>>
>
> Yes. A consensus model without a rights framework that safeguards
> minorities can be harmful to minorities.



One way of thinking is to clamor for the rights of men and women to be
equally represented, developing and developed countries proportionately
represented (giving rise to a sub-debate on whether weightage is to be
given to the size of population, quantum of wealth, geographic size, size
of the present Internet usage, or the size of the potential Internet usage,
or the acceptability of the country's political ideology, or by a ranking
of its own governance standards), north and south to be equally
represented, east and west to be equally represented, each continent to be
equally represented, rich and poor to be equally represented, technical and
non-technical users to be equally represented, proprietary and
non-proprietary philosophies to be proportionately represented, secular and
religious nations to be equally represented, people of different religions
to be equally represented, people of each and every language to be
represented, able people and differently able people to be proportionately
represented, &c

Some may argue that this would be the way to go. But the danger lies in the
complexity and impracticality of seating a representative from every
conceivable division. That could lower the process to a process of degraded
politics. Added to that would be the danger of particular groups of
individuals being or becoming concerned with promoting their own private
group's interest at the expense of common good; Within the equally,
proportionately, or more-than-proportionately (as often in the case of
minorities)  represented groups, some would have a louder voice and gain
greater influence to reap disproportionate benefits.

Are we to assume, for instance, that any governance system where a certain
religious group or a linguistic minority group  is not actually in the
governing council would enact laws that are harmful to that religious group
or that linguistic minority that is not actually seated in the council?
 What we need is a Governance mechanism BEYOND DIVISIONS that would at all
times consider the common good, including the good of minorities or the
voiceless.

Rousseau talks about the "lawgiver", we could equate the lawgiver to a
seated Member of the Internet Governance, "This individual is the
"lawgiver" (*le législateur*). The lawgiver is guided by sublime reason and
by a concern for the common good, and he is an individual whose enlightened
judgment can determine the principles of justice and utility which are best
suited to society."

The way forward is by insisting on individuals of above traits to be seated
in positions. The hope lies in the design of the multi-stakeholder model
which is open to scrutiny by everyone - everyone belonging to any of the
innumerable groups that I struggled to enumerate. Strengthen this model,
evolve this model, far greater justice will prevail.


>
>  "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
>> open
>> for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies
>> that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>> intention
>> behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but
>> as
>> unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>
>
> You mean to say that Internet governance can be devoid of politics?  I
> don't see how that is either possible nor why that would be desirable.



There is politics in Internet Governance. My idea is to minimize politics
by avoiding divisions.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M​​



>
>
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/b1041603/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 16:15:48 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:15:48 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki and De,

Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour
consensus call soon.

Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using the
words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about its
use.

Best Regards,
Sala
On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Friends,
> I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
> days of his life in intensive care.
> I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should be
> going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
> life :-)
> I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
> So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list
> with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to
> devote to it?
> It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now completing
> one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
> Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
> discussion.
> it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions
> about the planning for the igf.
> as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
> battery is choosing now to run out ....
> best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
> deirdre
>
>
>
>
> On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now going
>> to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and fully
>> concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if delivered,
>> will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On Wednesday (well,
>> tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and won't be much
>> available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot from me in
>> the coming two weeks or so.
>>
>> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of comments
>> and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so, I'd
>> suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this (in
>> any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala is
>> convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>
>> Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys
>> burn it down ;)
>>
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear All,
>>> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>> functions.
>>> >
>>>
>>> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>>
>>> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>> >
>>> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>> >
>>> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>> >
>>> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
>>> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
>>> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>>> stakeholders.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>>
>>>
>>> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>
>>>
>>> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>> > March xx, 2014.
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140319/b16f04da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 18:50:45 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:50:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was suggested
and what was being changed.


Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current role,
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.


(Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.

Sivasubramanian M





On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki and De,
>
> Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour
> consensus call soon.
>
> Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using
> the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about
> its use.
>
> Best Regards,
> Sala
> On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends,
>> I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
>> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
>> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
>> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
>> days of his life in intensive care.
>> I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should be
>> going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
>> life :-)
>> I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>> So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list
>> with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to
>> devote to it?
>> It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now completing
>> one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>> Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
>> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>> discussion.
>> it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions
>> about the planning for the igf.
>> as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
>> battery is choosing now to run out ....
>> best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>> deirdre
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>>>
>>> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>>
>>> Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys
>>> burn it down ;)
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dear All,
>>>> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>> functions.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>>>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>>>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>>> >
>>>> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>> >
>>>> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>>>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>>>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>>>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>>>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>>> >
>>>> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
>>>> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
>>>> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>>>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>>>> stakeholders.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> > March xx, 2014.
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/7f1c0433/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Tue Mar 18 19:16:46 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:16:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjSbKygUWiaSntPKoLcXtNfOjgOtoZVJJVDu2w6V2cyLA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, big thanks to Mawaki and all who contributed.
I have to say I cannot spend much time on this and appreciate Jeremy to
volunteer with Sala and others to help.

Just one minor suggestion. I would suggest to add "Civil Society" up front,
that reads


"The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
and appreciates...."

Otherwise, those who are not familiar with IGC etc would not understand
that this is the statement from the Civil Society until they read the
bottom of the third para which is often not noticed or edited out when
quoted.

best,

izumi





2014-03-19 7:50 GMT+09:00 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:

> Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was suggested
> and what was being changed.
>
>
> Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current role,
>> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
>> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
>> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
>> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
>> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
>> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
>
>
> (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework
> and that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable
> and appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mawaki and De,
>>
>> Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour
>> consensus call soon.
>>
>> Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using
>> the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about
>> its use.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Sala
>> On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Friends,
>>> I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
>>> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
>>> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
>>> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
>>> days of his life in intensive care.
>>> I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should
>>> be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
>>> life :-)
>>> I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>>> So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list
>>> with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to
>>> devote to it?
>>> It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
>>> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>>> Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
>>> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>>> discussion.
>>> it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions
>>> about the planning for the igf.
>>> as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
>>> battery is choosing now to run out ....
>>> best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>>> deirdre
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>>>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>>>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>>>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>>>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>>>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>>>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>>>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>>>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>>>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>>>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>>>
>>>> Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you
>>>> guys burn it down ;)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>>>
>>>> Mawaki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks.
>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>>> functions.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>>>>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>>>>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>>>>
>>>>> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>>>>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>>>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>>>>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>>>>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>>>>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the
>>>>> global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost
>>>>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make
>>>>> effective participation affordable for developing nations and related
>>>>> Internet stakeholders.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>> > March xx, 2014.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140319/fb5efc98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 19:32:22 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:32:22 -0700
Subject: [governance] Wired: US pledges to loosen grip on net. Don't be
 fooled
Message-ID: <04ad01cf4302$53c66420$fb532c60$@gmail.com>

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/18/us-internationalise-internet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/0a7214c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From hindenburgo at gmail.com  Tue Mar 18 20:30:36 2014
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:30:36 -0300
Subject: [governance] Wired: US pledges to loosen grip on net. Don't be
 fooled
In-Reply-To: <04ad01cf4302$53c66420$fb532c60$@gmail.com>
References: <04ad01cf4302$53c66420$fb532c60$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPM93kUnBduSKeEjA0zLbQiPsssGYQuU+tAKUyqFq+5RZM_jNw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you so much Michael Gurstein!

Hindenburgo Pires


2014-03-18 20:32 GMT-03:00 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>:

> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/18/us-internationalise-internet
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Departamento de Geografia Humana
*Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org <http://www.cibergeo.org>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/a143f272/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 18 23:06:48 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:06:48 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com> <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>

"internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained please.

Thanks,

Adam


On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was suggested and what was being changed.
> 
> 
> Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role, there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
> 
> (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently, indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
> 
> Sivasubramanian M 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mawaki and De,
> 
> Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour consensus call soon.
> 
> Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about its use.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Sala
> 
> On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few days of his life in intensive care.
> I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my life :-)
> I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
> So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to devote to it?
> It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
> Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it. Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a common position, this is surely the most important function of this discussion.
> it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions about the planning for the igf.
> as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my battery is choosing now to run out ....
> best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
> deirdre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot from me in the coming two weeks or so.
> 
> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so, I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer? 
> 
> Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys burn it down ;)
> 
> Thanks for your understanding.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 
> > Dear All,
> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
> >
> >
> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.
> >
> 
> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see that in the 1st paragraph.
> 
> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the privatization of the DNS.)
> >
> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
> >
> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
> >
> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
> >
> 
> 
> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
> 
> 
> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
> 
> 
> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"    Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> > The Internet Governance Caucus
> > March xx, 2014.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Mar 19 01:47:27 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:47:27 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com> <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com> <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <D07D2875F5AD497A9C8B23F65551A897@Toshiba>

I'd suggest drop judicial - it doesnt add much and is contentious.

Thanks Sala for keeping this going!!!

-----Original Message----- 
From: Adam Peake
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:06 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Mawaki Chango
Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced 
intent to relinquish role in IANA functions

"internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained 
please.

Thanks,

Adam


On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was suggested 
> and what was being changed.
>
>
> Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role, 
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the 
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be 
> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to 
> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized 
> legal mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability 
> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance 
> institution.
>
> (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently, 
> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus 
> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global 
> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and 
> that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and 
> appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mawaki and De,
>
> Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour 
> consensus call soon.
>
> Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using 
> the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about 
> its use.
>
> Best Regards,
> Sala
>
> On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying 
> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results 
> more or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an 
> expected event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the 
> first few days of his life in intensive care.
> I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should be 
> going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my 
> life :-)
> I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
> So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list 
> with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to 
> devote to it?
> It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now completing 
> one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
> Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it. 
> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards 
> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all 
> aware of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards 
> a common position, this is surely the most important function of this 
> discussion.
> it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions 
> about the planning for the igf.
> as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my 
> battery is choosing now to run out ....
> best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
> deirdre
>
>
>
>
> On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now going 
> to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and fully 
> concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if delivered, 
> will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On Wednesday (well, 
> tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and won't be much 
> available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot from me in 
> the coming two weeks or so.
>
> Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of comments 
> and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so, I'd 
> suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this (in 
> any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala is 
> convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>
> Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys 
> burn it down ;)
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
> >
> >
> > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and 
> > Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the 
> > oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for 
> > Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name 
> > functions.
> >
>
> why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA 
> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see 
> that in the 1st paragraph.
>
> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and 
> > appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of 
> > the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a 
> > governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC 
> > particularly acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of 
> > the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in 
> > the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a 
> > stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring 
> > to as  the privatization of the DNS.)
> >
> > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive, 
> > bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its 
> > inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected 
> > by its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder 
> > governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from 
> > the private sector led model, as well as from a model that only 
> > accommodates technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit 
> > of that model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make 
> > sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of 
> > Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the 
> > world.
> >
> > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide 
> > ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a 
> > transition proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the 
> > need for maintaining the openness and the global availability of the 
> > Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same 
> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users 
> > around the globe.
> >
> > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global 
> > Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure 
> > associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make 
> > effective participation affordable for developing nations and related 
> > Internet stakeholders.
> >
>
>
> effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>
>
> > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the 
> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete 
> > with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and 
> > that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms 
> > will be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>
>
> "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"    Judicial? 
> And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> > The Internet Governance Caucus
> > March xx, 2014.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William 
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t








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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Mar 19 06:38:13 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:08:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Adam Peake,


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> "internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained
> please.
>

​In a later message Ian has suggested that the word 'judicial' could be
dropped. If it is dropped, it is ok, I am still trying to answer your
question for clarity on what I meant.

The original sentence was

IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually with
> ​​
> an internationally neutral judicial framework


​​
Could have typed it better:  "IANA could be managed as a truly global
function, gradually [under an environment] of an internationally neutral
judicial framework." This was a non-specific suggestion, with all the
necessary thinking to be done by the Community. If you ask me if such a
framework exists anywhere, then my answer is "No, I don't know". Was I
implying that the present environment of California jurisdiction is NOT
neutral ?  No, I did not. My thoughts were more about the ease of access by
the Global community. I felt that the present framework is expensive and
largely inaccessible by organizations and people from around the world.

One more clarification:  This was not a suggestion of take the IANA
function to Hague :)

Hope this explains the reasoning.

Sivasubramanian
​



>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was
> suggested and what was being changed.
> >
> >
> > Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role,
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
> >
> > (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
> that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
> appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
> >
> > Sivasubramanian M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mawaki and De,
> >
> > Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour
> consensus call soon.
> >
> > Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using
> the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about
> its use.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Sala
> >
> > On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> > I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
> days of his life in intensive care.
> > I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should
> be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
> life :-)
> > I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
> > So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list
> with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to
> devote to it?
> > It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
> > Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
> discussion.
> > it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions
> about the planning for the igf.
> > as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
> battery is choosing now to run out ....
> > best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
> > deirdre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
> >
> > Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
> >
> > Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you guys
> burn it down ;)
> >
> > Thanks for your understanding.
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> >
> > > Dear All,
> > > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
> > >
> > >
> > > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications
> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.
> > >
> >
> > why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
> that in the 1st paragraph.
> >
> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
> privatization of the DNS.)
> > >
> > > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
> > >
> > > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
> > >
> > > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
> stakeholders.
> > >
> >
> >
> > effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
> >
> >
> > > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
> >
> >
> > "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Internet Governance Caucus
> > > March xx, 2014.
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140319/7de4c96d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Mar 19 08:47:31 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:47:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] NETMundial remote hubs - request for hosts
Message-ID: <CDDEFC4A-A22D-42C0-B5EC-135FBF18BBE4@glocom.ac.jp>

The NETMundial logistics committee has just issued a call for groups interested in operating a remote access hub for the meeting, April 23-24.  Details on the conference website:

<http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/03/18/netmundial-opens-opportunity-for-interested-to-host-official-hubs-of-participation/>

The meeting will be webcast in seven languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

A hub can be located in any city around the world to allow anyone interested to join local discussions and to participate in NETmundial.  Organizations wishing to host a hub should have necessary infrastructure (broadband access, projects), the hub meeting should be open to anyone.  The organizer should be able to facilitate interactions both locally and with NETmundial.  NETMundial logistics committee will provide help.

Detail at the URL above.

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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Mar 19 13:25:23 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:25:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule
 Hearing
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeOuSbULzAtOjha_xkiV=tbBVgvSUHuL12NbC7Ld_NiFA@mail.gmail.com>

Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule Hearing

March 18, 2014, 5:14 PM PDT

By Amy SchatzAs expected, Republicans are
starting<http://recode.net/2014/03/14/u-s-to-give-up-key-internet-governance-role/>
 to <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-326087A1.pdf>
fret<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373578/handing-over-keys-internet-charles-c-w-cooke>
somewhat
over the Obama administration'sannouncement<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
 late Friday that the U.S. plans to give up oversight of ICANN, the
Internet management body, in 2015. Conservatives have argued in the past
that the U.S. needs to protect what control it has over the Internet and
keep countries like China and Russia, which limit what citizens can see
online, from making oversight decisions. House Energy and Commerce
Republicans said<http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/committee-leaders-pledge-robust-oversight-administration-announcement-future-internet>
Tuesday
they'll "conduct aggressive oversight" over the decision and plan to hold a
hearing in early April.

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140319/6a372187/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Mar 19 13:32:25 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:32:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule
 Hearing
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAeOuSbULzAtOjha_xkiV=tbBVgvSUHuL12NbC7Ld_NiFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeOuSbULzAtOjha_xkiV=tbBVgvSUHuL12NbC7Ld_NiFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf+Xu=3ykY=r_F=ngGOa3pkcsrBP1NgeZJCzpLW7Rbu-Q@mail.gmail.com>

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-326087A1.pdf


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule Hearing
>
> March 18, 2014, 5:14 PM PDT
>
> By Amy SchatzAs expected, Republicans are starting<http://recode.net/2014/03/14/u-s-to-give-up-key-internet-governance-role/>
>  to <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-326087A1.pdf>
> fret<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373578/handing-over-keys-internet-charles-c-w-cooke> somewhat
> over the Obama administration'sannouncement<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
>  late Friday that the U.S. plans to give up oversight of ICANN, the
> Internet management body, in 2015. Conservatives have argued in the past
> that the U.S. needs to protect what control it has over the Internet and
> keep countries like China and Russia, which limit what citizens can see
> online, from making oversight decisions. House Energy and Commerce
> Republicans said<http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/committee-leaders-pledge-robust-oversight-administration-announcement-future-internet> Tuesday
> they'll "conduct aggressive oversight" over the decision and plan to hold a
> hearing in early April.
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140319/27674f94/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Mar 19 13:41:35 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:41:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision,
 Schedule Hearing
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAeOuSbULzAtOjha_xkiV=tbBVgvSUHuL12NbC7Ld_NiFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeOuSbULzAtOjha_xkiV=tbBVgvSUHuL12NbC7Ld_NiFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4831B306-224A-47D7-8A63-7CD1EE69DD3F@istaff.org>

> Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision, Schedule Hearing

Text of the Upton/Walden statement - <http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/committee-leaders-pledge-robust-oversight-administration-announcement-future-internet#sthash.Kmo0uJ5c.dpuf>

"The Internet has thrived across the globe under the existing multi-stakeholder effort, and should serve as a guide for the future. We welcome a thoughtful discussion amongst Internet stakeholders on the Department of Commerce’s role in the DNS. But changes to the current model should be approached with a cautious and careful eye. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been at the forefront of the effort to preserve Internet openness and freedom. We will continue to conduct robust oversight to ensure that before any changes are considered we safeguard that no government or intergovernmental body takes over critical DNS functions. We have many questions, and look forward to a thorough examination the first week of April."

FYI,
/John



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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Mar 19 13:51:22 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:51:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Mechanisms for ending mass surveillance (was Re: NTIA
 announcment)
In-Reply-To: <5326DD25.7020403@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
	<53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
	<CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
	<3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>
	<53249638.8010105@apc.org>
	<A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
	<7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
	<5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
	<5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>
	<5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>
	<5326DD25.7020403@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20140319185122.2f675b31@quill>

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> With this transition on the table we can go into the 'future
> evolution' into more detail, but what about coming up with
> mechanisms for addressing mass surveillance?

I would conjecture that quite a few actions of recent months, including
the NTIA announcement, have been driven to a significant extent by a
desire of US actors to fill the 'future evolution' discourse as much as
possible with content that is unrelated to the mass surveillance issue.

Who is interested in collaborating on developing a counter-strategy to
this?

I mean, I'm looking for a strategic collaboration aimed at keeping the
mass surveillance issue as part of the center of the discourse, as an
important human rights concern that needs to be part of what the
Internet governance ecosystem needs to be engineered to effectively
address.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar 19 15:31:27 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:31:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Republicans Uneasy About ICANN Decision,
  Schedule Hearing
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAf+Xu=3ykY=r_F=ngGOa3pkcsrBP1NgeZJCzpLW7Rbu-Q@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeOuSbULzAtOjha_xkiV=tbBVgvSUHuL12NbC7Ld_NiFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAf+Xu=3ykY=r_F=ngGOa3pkcsrBP1NgeZJCzpLW7Rbu-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1WQM9n-0002m1-Tf@igcaucus.org>

Carolina,

I quoted the immediate reaction of GOP, they obviously continue. Your 
quote of the  FCC  Commissionner  is also interesting. If you 
consider them carefully (as well as RFC 6852) you might have, like I 
have, the distinctive feeling that the real issue is not so much the 
decision about what to do, but that it has to be collective, so no 
one can be made responsible of a failure.

The decision is not that easy for the USG. They have managed an 
incredible development for all, they are the leading beneficiary. But 
they know this is partly a piece of luck, partly due to their 
funding, partly to a fundamental enthusiasm of a little group of 
people that may not renew or enlarge to the global diversity. The 
real question is the one RFC 6852 starts with: the "huge bounty" 
resulting from the internet and the web. And (IMHO) of the missing 
middle-layer between these two propositions: intelligence.

What is worrying too, for everyone, is the NTIA lie: that the Class 
IN topzone db.file is the core of the Internet. It is difficult to 
know what will be the political response to the Class "IN" TopRep file.

Certainly, the ICANN "ROOT" now also includes the IP addresses, but 
will it be enough to calm the TM lobby? Will the Democrats be able to 
show that the decisions were also Republican, that Richard Clarke's 
doctrine was not applied by any side, that BGP is still as vulnerable 
as before?

The real problem, we civil society IUsers (informed users) face is 
the uncertainty between now and end 2015. Every technical development 
we can engage and innovation we can propose must stay away from the 
IETF technology, because derivative works can be legally objected in US courts.

jfc


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar 19 18:26:43 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:26:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's
 top lawyer insists
Message-ID: <012c01cf43c2$547872d0$fd695870$@gmail.com>

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-co
llection-rajesh-de

.


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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar 20 05:17:03 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:17:03 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org> <4F021523-9213-4CA0-AC9C-34BD7262B177@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <532AB20F.2020305@apc.org>

Thanks to all for input. Will send you summary of MAG meeting outcomes
on IGF 2014 format as soon as it is ready.

I think most of what you all suggested is being accommodated.. more or less.

Anriette


On 18/03/2014 12:24, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> I agree here with Adam. Kepp the issues open as long as possible so that we can meet all the questions which are coming out from the procceses in April, May (inter aia the Ilves Report) and June (inter aliathe ICANN meeting in London with the high level GAC meeting and the ATLAS II).
>  
> One idea which worked well in recent EURODIGs are "flash sessions". 30 or 45 minutes presentations by one or two presenters (speaker has no more than 10 (or 2x5) minutes followed by q&a). The subjects of the flash sessions can be defined at a later stage shortly before the meeting. 
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: Di 18.03.2014 11:08
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
>
>
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for asking. 
>
> To be honest, I'm not very clear what the difference is between main sessions and focus sessions -- what was the actual difference in Bali?  
>
> Perhaps the Secretariat and MAG needs to do a better job of bringing the organizers of the various workshops into planning of the focus sessions.  That didn't work well last, mainly I think because we hadn't thought through a new process (and to be honest I don't think 'feeder workshops' have ever worked and are unlikely to, a conference schedule can't permit.)
>
> I think we saw in Bali that topics on current interests work well.  Development, tried yet again, and not satisfactory yet again (if going to do such sessions it must include a majority of developing country participants, and contributors who are development experts rather than well meaning policy geeks.)
>
> Did ypu find the policy questions helpful?  Were they addressed in the sessions and did they add anything?  I'm not sure they were widely used in most sessions.  They seemed to be used as a bit of an after thought. 
>
> Of the themes, suggest it would be helpful to leave a large block of time (50%) to address NETmundial outcomes and what we are learning from other processes.  By mid-summer we'll have an idea of what's going into ITU plenipot, WSIS etc.  React to what's happening rather than more on the same old themes.
>
> What does the overarching theme mean?  Too many vague sub-themes, they provide little or no guidance to those submitting workshop proposals, and no help to MAG when assessing what's relevant/not.
>
> Adam 
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session formats.
>>
>> Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day or only on the first day and the last day?
>>
>> What should the format be of these sessions?
>>
>> Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?
>>
>> Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these focus/main sessions can be built?
>>
>> Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?
>>
>>
>> Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014
>>
>>
>> Proposed Overarching Theme: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance
>>
>> Proposed Sub Themes:
>>
>>       * Policies enabling Access
>>       * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>>       * Internet as engine for growth & development
>>       * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
>>       * Enhancing Digital Trust
>>       * Internet and Human Rights
>>       * Critical Internet Resources
>>       * Emerging Issues
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Anriette
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen
>> anriette at apc.org
>>
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>
>> www.apc.org
>>
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/6eeb40d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 05:26:19 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:26:19 +0000
Subject: AW: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
In-Reply-To: <532AB20F.2020305@apc.org>
References: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org> <4F021523-9213-4CA0-AC9C-34BD7262B177@glocom.ac.jp>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <532AB20F.2020305@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh11nA6r3+g4edmeDNu-k=HJgRcPOJvjzuWvK4hCW1rh7jw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all, Anriette

My quick  thoughts below:

Proposed Sub Themes:

   1. Policies enabling Access
   2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
   3. Internet as engine for growth & development
   4. IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem

I think this is a key theme and I will say we hold at least 1 focus session
at the beginning and 1 at the end. Maybe the first on principles and the
last on mechanism. My little finger tells me there will be a lot of
workshops in between discussing modalities and these, I believe, can feed
in to the last focus session. There is a lot happening between now and
Istanbul that we will really like to have a clear vision forward on this
particular topic

   1. Enhancing Digital Trust
   2. Internet and Human Rights
   3. Critical Internet Resources
   4. Emerging Issues

The NTIA announcement comes in here.  Where next? Especially after ICANN
would have held its own meeting.  Would be a great time to  also tie up in
a kind of focus session.


Best regards


N



On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Thanks to all for input. Will send you summary of MAG meeting outcomes
> on IGF 2014 format as soon as it is ready.
>
> I think most of what you all suggested is being accommodated.. more or
> less.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 18/03/2014 12:24, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> I agree here with Adam. Kepp the issues open as long as possible so that we can meet all the questions which are coming out from the procceses in April, May (inter aia the Ilves Report) and June (inter aliathe ICANN meeting in London with the high level GAC meeting and the ATLAS II).
>
> One idea which worked well in recent EURODIGs are "flash sessions". 30 or 45 minutes presentations by one or two presenters (speaker has no more than 10 (or 2x5) minutes followed by q&a). The subjects of the flash sessions can be defined at a later stage shortly before the meeting.
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: Di 18.03.2014 11:08
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
>
>
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> To be honest, I'm not very clear what the difference is between main sessions and focus sessions -- what was the actual difference in Bali?
>
> Perhaps the Secretariat and MAG needs to do a better job of bringing the organizers of the various workshops into planning of the focus sessions.  That didn't work well last, mainly I think because we hadn't thought through a new process (and to be honest I don't think 'feeder workshops' have ever worked and are unlikely to, a conference schedule can't permit.)
>
> I think we saw in Bali that topics on current interests work well.  Development, tried yet again, and not satisfactory yet again (if going to do such sessions it must include a majority of developing country participants, and contributors who are development experts rather than well meaning policy geeks.)
>
> Did ypu find the policy questions helpful?  Were they addressed in the sessions and did they add anything?  I'm not sure they were widely used in most sessions.  They seemed to be used as a bit of an after thought.
>
> Of the themes, suggest it would be helpful to leave a large block of time (50%) to address NETmundial outcomes and what we are learning from other processes.  By mid-summer we'll have an idea of what's going into ITU plenipot, WSIS etc.  React to what's happening rather than more on the same old themes.
>
> What does the overarching theme mean?  Too many vague sub-themes, they provide little or no guidance to those submitting workshop proposals, and no help to MAG when assessing what's relevant/not.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>
>  Dear all
>
> There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session formats.
>
> Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day or only on the first day and the last day?
>
> What should the format be of these sessions?
>
> Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?
>
> Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these focus/main sessions can be built?
>
> Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?
>
>
> Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014
>
>
> Proposed Overarching Theme: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance
>
> Proposed Sub Themes:
>
>       * Policies enabling Access
>       * Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>       * Internet as engine for growth & development
>       * IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
>       * Enhancing Digital Trust
>       * Internet and Human Rights
>       * Critical Internet Resources
>       * Emerging Issues
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Anriette
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/02569d11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kboakye at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 05:26:50 2014
From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:26:50 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
Message-ID: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello folks,

I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.

I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it appears
that .edu extensions are not available.

Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a .edu extension
registered?

Regards,
Kwasi

-- 
*We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action
always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. *-- *Frank
Tibolt*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/c2a966bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kstouray at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 05:39:03 2014
From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:39:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>

Kwasi,

Here you go: https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/

Katim



On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong
<kboakye at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>
> I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it appears
> that .edu extensions are not available.
>
> Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a .edu extension
> registered?
>
> Regards,
> Kwasi
>
> --
> *We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action
> always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. *-- *Frank
> Tibolt*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/bcd90805/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Mar 20 06:38:21 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:38:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 
09:26:50 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong 
<kboakye at gmail.com> writes
>I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it 
>appears that .edu extensions are not available

They are, but you also have to qualify. Does this describe your 
situation:

"Only U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally 
accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of 
Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies may obtain an Internet name 
in the .edu domain."

"applicants [must] be located within the United States (including U.S. 
territories and possessions); or to be licensed, chartered, or 
incorporated within the United States (including U.S. territories and 
possessions); or to be otherwise officially recognized by a U.S. state 
or federal government agency (including U.S. territories and 
possessions)."
-- 
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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 08:23:03 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:03 +0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Audio Files, Transcripts from
 Community Calls with ICANN Board Chair and CEO
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtN4+4+h6K0YhVzaWyJmwg5Oe4JUGEWbRa3P211se54TPA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ICANN
Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Audio Files, Transcripts from Community
Calls with ICANN Board Chair and CEO

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/>
News Alert

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-19mar14-en.htm

________________________________
Audio Files, Transcripts from Community Calls with ICANN Board Chair and CEO

19 March 2014

Were you unable to join the community call with ICANN Board Chair
Steve Crocker and ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé on Saturday?
Don't worry that you missed out, because an audio file and transcript
is available online now.

Just under 300 ICANN community members and staff joined the
quickly-scheduled call at 14:00 UTC on Saturday, 15 March to learn
more about the US government's announcement the day before that it
would turn over stewardship of certain Internet technical functions to
the global community.

"It's been a long path leading to [this day]," Crocker said. "And it
will be a long path from here. To borrow words from Churchill, this is
the 'end of the beginning.'"

"This is a moment to celebrate," Chehadé said. "Unfortunately, we have
to move very quickly into the responsibility this entails. This
decision puts us now in an important light. The entire world is
watching. We must engage everyone."

The community call was scheduled with short notice, due to the
unexpected release of the announcement ahead of schedule.

Audio File<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ntia-20140315-en.mp3> [MP3, 14.0 MB]

Transcript<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ntia-15mar14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 172 KB]

-- 
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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 08:25:58 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:58 +0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: The ITU weighs in...
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtPLdHp18paRzJqaTYOrLaMtzcgBOrtXwBbwVhT1CBbq5A@mail.gmail.com>

Sharing for information, from manning bill
Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Subject: The ITU weighs in...

http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-mar2014.aspx
(text from Andrew)
----------
Greetings,
The ITU's Council Working Group on International Internet Related
Public Policy (CWG-Internet)
+recently agreed to conduct an open, online consultation asking all
stakeholder their views on the
+role of governments in 12 specific internet-related public policy areas.

CWG-Internet had recently conducted a similar consultation amongst
governments only.  Noting that
+all stakeholders should have the opportunity to weigh in on this
important question In response,
+the United States and may of our friends supported an open
consultation, so we are pleased to see
+this opportunity come about.

I encourage you to check out the link below and consider providing a
submission.  Short answers are
+great (and perhaps more effective), so please don't feel the task is
too great a burden.

---------

/bill

-- 
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 joly at punkcast.com  Thu Mar 20 10:28:19 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:28:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?WEBCAST_TONIGHT=3A_NCUC_Conference=3A?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_ICANN_and_Global_Internet_Governance=3A_The_Road_to_S=E3o?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Paulo=2C_and_Beyond?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0B=P7bWw78MXDsm2GSPU9DUGZyKCG6e3FcnYR1HDDLhQ@mail.gmail.com>

(Feel free to forward)

If NCUC conferences set the tone for the entire ICANN meeting that follows
them, this one will be exceptionally influential. In particular the
afternoon sessions on Governance and Globalization, comprising the NTIA's
first public speaking engagements since the IANA transition proposal was
announced. The stream is via YouTube so it should be possible, no matter
what time you show up, to merrily skip up and down the timeline, and it
will be html5 and IPv6 functional.

   joly posted: "Tomorrow, Friday March 21 2014, just prior to ICANN 49 in
Singapore, the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names
Supporting Organization (GNSO) will host a one-day conference "ICANN and
Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paul"

  [image: NCUC] <http://ncuc.org>Tomorrow, Friday March 21 2014, just prior
to ICANN 49 <http://singapore49.icann.org/> in Singapore, the NonCommercial
Users Constituency <http://ncuc.org> (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting
Organization (GNSO) will host a one-day conference "*ICANN and Global
Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond
<http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/>*". Cross-community panels will discuss
recent Internet governance initiatives, core principles and road-maps for
globalization and institutional innovation. Speakers include ICANN Chair *Steve
Crocker*, ALAC Chair *Olivier Crepin-Leblond*, NCSG Chair *Rafik
Dammak*, *Erika
Mann* of facebook,* Niels ten Oever* of Article 19, *Jari Arrko* of the
IETF, *Avri Doria* of ISOC-NY, *Fiona Alexander* of the NTIA, *Milton
Mueller* of the NCUC, former ICANN board member *Bertrand de la
Chappelle*, *Markus
Kummer* of the Internet Society,* Alice Munyua* of the African Union, and
Internet Hall of Famer *George Sadowsky*. *Larry Stricklin*g with give a
final keynote. Remote participation will be available via Adobe Connect,
and there will be a live webcast. Singapore is exactly half a day ahead of
NYC so this all starts at 10pm tonight and runs until 6am.

*What*: NCUC Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to
São Paulo, and Beyond <http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/>
*Where*: Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore
*When*: Friday March 21 2014 10am-6pm SGT | 0200-1000 UTC | 1000-0600 EDT
*Agenda*: http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/programme/
*Remote Participation*: http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-ncuc-ig
*Webcast*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-OSzgOT3jA
*Twitter*: @ncuc <https://twitter.com/search?q=ncuc&src=typd&f=realtime> |
#ICANN49 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ICANN49&src=hash&f=realtime>

 Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6421#respond>    See all
comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6421#comments>


*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6421






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/9cf74e1c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ceo at bnnrc.net  Thu Mar 20 11:49:41 2014
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:49:41 +0600
Subject: [governance] NETmundial registrations - deadlines
In-Reply-To: <CAH5-+WgxRDLk=V4dhGDzbdLvgr5MX-LWnLAue+Ym4BGcMHLu1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFD48AF1-9B46-4658-A88C-68AB2A456226@glocom.ac.jp> <CAH5-+WgxRDLk=V4dhGDzbdLvgr5MX-LWnLAue+Ym4BGcMHLu1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEc4Ok9TuiO3qhKRAZHZjfLmBCtYgCW_tfqbJJP+9FvLz23d-w@mail.gmail.com>

*I need some information for Bangladesh Policy Makers: *
*1. How many countries officially attend to  *
NETmundial

with best regards,



*Bazlu*
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|*
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
*[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social
Council]*

House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|*  Bangladesh*|*
Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647
Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr <bnnrc at bd.drik.net>
cbd at gmail.com *|*
www.bnnrc.net





On 18 March 2014 23:51, Sergio Salinas Porto
<presidencia at internauta.org.ar>wrote:

> Dear Adan, Thanks for the information!
> Kind regards
>
> *Sergio Salinas Porto
> Presidente Internauta Argentina
> Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://ctamdq.org.ar>
> FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilatin.org>
> facebook:salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> & sergiosalinasII <http://www.facebook.com/sergiosalinasII>
> twitter:sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>
> Google+: Sergio Salinas Porto <https://plus.google.com/104639152443153592254/posts>
> Hangout:presidencia at internauta.org.ar <Hangout%3Apresidencia at internauta.org.ar> /
> Pixelhub: salinasporto <http://pixelhub.me/salinasporto>
> Youtube: salinasporto <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>
> Skype:internautaargentina
> Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 <%2B54%209%20223%205%20215819>*
>
> *"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano*
>
>
>
> 2014-03-18 9:47 GMT-03:00 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
>
>>  Hi everyone.
>>
>> A reminder that a first round of invitations to attend
>> NETmundial were sent a few days ago and there is a strict deadline for
>> completing the registration form.
>>
>> The form is a unique URL for each applicant, I cannot send a link.
>>
>> It is still not possible to guarantee travel support at this time: if you
>> requested travel support, please complete the registration before the
>> deadline and wait for more instructions about support.  Do not delay
>> registration.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/b69754ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ceo at bnnrc.net  Thu Mar 20 13:25:19 2014
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:25:19 +0600
Subject: [governance] Bangladesh Delegation@ NETmundial 2014 Sao Paulo,
 Brazil
Message-ID: <CAEc4Ok9PJWws2mGJHReMLfP2KgMPXZpNkxeU0FMK42nBwcU5wA@mail.gmail.com>

*Bangladesh Delegation@ NETmundial 2014 Sao Paulo, Brazil*

Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum (BIGF) is joining The Global
Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance on 23rd
and 24th April, 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

*Mr. Hasanul Haq Inu, MP*. the hon'ble Minister, Ministry of
Infromation, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh will
lead the 5

members Bangladesh delegation to NETmundial.

The delegation member has composed of 1 representatives from
government, 1 from private sector, 1 from civil society, 1 policy
expert and 1from technical community. Other Delegation Members are;

*Dr. Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury*, Chairperson & Policy Expert, Center
for e-Parliament Research,

*Ms. Afroza Haq*, Member of Bangladesh Association of Software &
Information Services (BASIS),


*Mohammad Abdul Haque* (M. A. Haque Anu) Secretary General Bangladesh
Internet Governance Forum (BIGF) and Assistant Editor Monthly Computer
Jagat, and


*AHM Bazlur Rahman-S21BR*, Chief Executive Officer, Bangladesh NGOs Network
for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) and Member The Multi-Stakeholder
Steering Group (MSG) of Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
(APrIGF)

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



*Bazlu*
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|*
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
*[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social
Council]*

House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|*  Bangladesh*|*
Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647
Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr <bnnrc at bd.drik.net>
cbd at gmail.com *|*
www.bnnrc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/bf174c5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Mar 20 15:25:11 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_WEBCAST_TONIGHT=3A_NCUC_Confere?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nce=3A_ICANN_and_Global_Internet_Governance=3A_The_Road_to?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_S=E3o_Paulo=2C_and_Beyond?=
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0B=P7bWw78MXDsm2GSPU9DUGZyKCG6e3FcnYR1HDDLhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk0B=P7bWw78MXDsm2GSPU9DUGZyKCG6e3FcnYR1HDDLhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0Dz1WjN1ozTpd=czPQdm7drSimL1PeE3eMH056QoH1-w@mail.gmail.com>

Since I screwed up my times in the earlier msg, just to be clear this
starts at 10pm tonight Thurs EDT = 2am Fri UTC

>
>    joly posted: "Tomorrow, Friday March 21 2014, just prior to ICANN 49
> in Singapore, the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic
> Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) will host a one-day conference "ICANN
> and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paul"
>
>   [image: NCUC] <http://ncuc.org>Tomorrow, Friday March 21 2014, just
> prior to ICANN 49 <http://singapore49.icann.org/> in Singapore, the NonCommercial
> Users Constituency <http://ncuc.org> (NCUC) of the Generic Names
> Supporting Organization (GNSO) will host a one-day conference "*ICANN and
> Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond
> <http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/>*". Cross-community panels will
> discuss recent Internet governance initiatives, core principles and
> road-maps for globalization and institutional innovation. Speakers include
> ICANN Chair *Steve Crocker*, ALAC Chair *Olivier Crepin-Leblond*, NCSG
> Chair *Rafik Dammak*, *Erika Mann* of facebook,* Niels ten Oever* of
> Article 19, *Jari Arrko* of the IETF, *Avri Doria* of ISOC-NY, *Fiona
> Alexander* of the NTIA, *Milton Mueller* of the NCUC, former ICANN board
> member *Bertrand de la Chappelle*, *Markus Kummer* of the Internet
> Society,* Alice Munyua* of the African Union, and Internet Hall of Famer *George
> Sadowsky*. *Larry Stricklin*g with give a final keynote. Remote
> participation will be available via Adobe Connect, and there will be a live
> webcast. Singapore is exactly half a day ahead of NYC so this all starts at
> 10pm tonight and runs until 6am.
>
> *What*: NCUC Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road
> to São Paulo, and Beyond <http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/>
> *Where*: Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore
> *When*: Friday March 21 2014 10am-6pm SGT | 0200-1000 UTC | 2200-0600 EDT
> *Agenda*: http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/programme/
> *Remote Participation*:
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-ncuc-ig
> *Webcast*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-OSzgOT3jA
> *Twitter*: @ncuc <https://twitter.com/search?q=ncuc&src=typd&f=realtime>|
> #ICANN49 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ICANN49&src=hash&f=realtime>
>
>  Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6421#respond>    See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6421#comments>
>
>
> *Permalink*
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6421
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/7c12680c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 17:39:13 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:39:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp> <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Here I am again. with the latest draft taking into account all the comments
above. Now, I'd like to urge you: this not the end of the story and we will
have all the consultation process for the formulation of the transition
proposal to make submit further inputs. If you have proposed an edit that
has not been included as proposed/worded, it is because there is a reason
--most likely distorting the intent of the drafters. If you can't live with
that and want explanation, please ask.

I for one will personally take issue with anyone asking again for a change
in language in all but the last two paragraphs, unless they can show a
mistake or obvious contradiction is being made or they are just improving
on the English. Otherwise I'll begin to believe that some people here just
don't want IGC to be able to put anything out as a result of our work :)

The title may be changed to shorten it (if you are so inclined.)

Para. last but one: I have reformulated after Adam's observations/questions
in order to reflect more clearly its economic motivation (the intention
here was not to ask for funding developing countries CS to attend
meetings.) I hope it's clearer now and acceptable to you.

Last para.: I have re-worded it to reflect the initial language and intent
while trying to improve on clarity. I hope that is the case. I wouldn't
change it for a language that would be fuzzier than what we now have if I,
with all my limitations, am not convinced the replacing language better
serves the meaning intended.

Timeline

1) Comments to be received before tomorrow (Friday) midnight

2) I will issue a two-day consensus call tomorrow (Friday) midight UTC/GMT

3) Sunday midnight: The statement will be made the official IGC statement
as is then.

Thanks for your understanding.

Mawaki
-----------

The IGC's Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community.

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to end its
oversight role with the IANA functions by calling to start a process to
transition the full administration of those key Internet domain name
functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.



The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of
the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
resolve to see all stakeholders involved in the consultation process as
well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a
stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (also referred to as the
"privatization of the DNS" by NTIA.)



The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
inclusiveness of all people concerned and who might be affected by the
resulting policies. For the Internet, the need to enhance meaningful
engagement globally is critical for such processes to be authentic and
their results more robust in heeding the global public interest.



We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
"inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
groups. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic multi-stakeholder model, we
stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
citizens and civil society organizations across the world.



We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
is critical that we continue to protect the openness and the global
availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
Internet users around the globe.



>From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development afforded
by the Internet, the IGC urges the international community and the global
Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure
associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce economic
barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders, to the
extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.



Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
globalization of the IANA functions will be further completed by carefully
assessing the jurisdiction that should apply to the institution which will
result from this transition. This should be done taking into account, and
striving to balance across all stakeholders from all regions of the world,
the burden of accessing and making use of the applicable legal apparatus.
In this context, suitable and effective accountability and transparency
mechanisms will also be established for the new global Internet governance
institution.



The Internet Governance Caucus

March  24, 2014.





On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Adam Peake,
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> "internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained
>> please.
>>
>
> In a later message Ian has suggested that the word 'judicial' could be
> dropped. If it is dropped, it is ok, I am still trying to answer your
> question for clarity on what I meant.
>
> The original sentence was
>
> IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually with
>>  an internationally neutral judicial framework
>
>
> Could have typed it better:  "IANA could be managed as a truly global
> function, gradually [under an environment] of an internationally neutral
> judicial framework." This was a non-specific suggestion, with all the
> necessary thinking to be done by the Community. If you ask me if such a
> framework exists anywhere, then my answer is "No, I don't know". Was I
> implying that the present environment of California jurisdiction is NOT
> neutral ?  No, I did not. My thoughts were more about the ease of access by
> the Global community. I felt that the present framework is expensive and
> largely inaccessible by organizations and people from around the world.
>
> One more clarification:  This was not a suggestion of take the IANA
> function to Hague :)
>
> Hope this explains the reasoning.
>
> Sivasubramanian
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was
>> suggested and what was being changed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current role,
>> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
>> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
>> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
>> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
>> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
>> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
>> >
>> > (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
>> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
>> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
>> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
>> that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
>> appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>> >
>> > Sivasubramanian M
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Mawaki and De,
>> >
>> > Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour
>> consensus call soon.
>> >
>> > Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of using
>> the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query about
>> its use.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Sala
>> >
>> > On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Dear Friends,
>> > I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
>> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
>> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
>> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
>> days of his life in intensive care.
>> > I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should
>> be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
>> life :-)
>> > I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>> > So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the list
>> with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time to
>> devote to it?
>> > It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
>> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>> > Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
>> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>> discussion.
>> > it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's questions
>> about the planning for the igf.
>> > as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
>> battery is choosing now to run out ....
>> > best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>> > deirdre
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>> >
>> > Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>> >
>> > Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you
>> guys burn it down ;)
>> >
>> > Thanks for your understanding.
>> >
>> > Mawaki
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear All,
>> > > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks. Mawaki
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.
>> > >
>> >
>> > why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>> >
>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>> privatization of the DNS.)
>> > >
>> > > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>> > >
>> > > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>> > >
>> > > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the global
>> Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost structure
>> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>> stakeholders.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>> >
>> >
>> > > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>> >
>> >
>> > "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus
>> > > March xx, 2014.
>> > >
>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >
>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >
>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/15d2045a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 17:41:58 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:41:58 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki,

Just tidying up the statement to send it through.

Sala


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Here I am again. with the latest draft taking into account all the
> comments above. Now, I'd like to urge you: this not the end of the story
> and we will have all the consultation process for the formulation of the
> transition proposal to make submit further inputs. If you have proposed an
> edit that has not been included as proposed/worded, it is because there is
> a reason --most likely distorting the intent of the drafters. If you can't
> live with that and want explanation, please ask.
>
> I for one will personally take issue with anyone asking again for a change
> in language in all but the last two paragraphs, unless they can show a
> mistake or obvious contradiction is being made or they are just improving
> on the English. Otherwise I'll begin to believe that some people here just
> don't want IGC to be able to put anything out as a result of our work :)
>
> The title may be changed to shorten it (if you are so inclined.)
>
> Para. last but one: I have reformulated after Adam's
> observations/questions in order to reflect more clearly its economic
> motivation (the intention here was not to ask for funding developing
> countries CS to attend meetings.) I hope it's clearer now and acceptable to
> you.
>
> Last para.: I have re-worded it to reflect the initial language and intent
> while trying to improve on clarity. I hope that is the case. I wouldn't
> change it for a language that would be fuzzier than what we now have if I,
> with all my limitations, am not convinced the replacing language better
> serves the meaning intended.
>
> Timeline
>
> 1) Comments to be received before tomorrow (Friday) midnight
>
> 2) I will issue a two-day consensus call tomorrow (Friday) midight UTC/GMT
>
> 3) Sunday midnight: The statement will be made the official IGC statement
> as is then.
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> Mawaki
> -----------
>
> The IGC's Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community.
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to end its
> oversight role with the IANA functions by calling to start a process to
> transition the full administration of those key Internet domain name
> functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.
>
>
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
> and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of
> the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
> resolve to see all stakeholders involved in the consultation process as
> well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a
> stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (also referred to as the
> "privatization of the DNS" by NTIA.)
>
>
>
> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people concerned and who might be affected by the
> resulting policies. For the Internet, the need to enhance meaningful
> engagement globally is critical for such processes to be authentic and
> their results more robust in heeding the global public interest.
>
>
>
> We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
> "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
> from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
> groups. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic multi-stakeholder model, we
> stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>
>
>
> We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the
> global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
> is critical that we continue to protect the openness and the global
> availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
> and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
> Internet users around the globe.
>
>
>
> From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development afforded
> by the Internet, the IGC urges the international community and the global
> Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure
> associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce economic
> barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders, to the
> extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.
>
>
>
> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> globalization of the IANA functions will be further completed by carefully
> assessing the jurisdiction that should apply to the institution which will
> result from this transition. This should be done taking into account, and
> striving to balance across all stakeholders from all regions of the world,
> the burden of accessing and making use of the applicable legal apparatus.
> In this context, suitable and effective accountability and transparency
> mechanisms will also be established for the new global Internet governance
> institution.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March  24, 2014.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Adam Peake,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> "internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained
>>> please.
>>>
>>
>> In a later message Ian has suggested that the word 'judicial' could be
>> dropped. If it is dropped, it is ok, I am still trying to answer your
>> question for clarity on what I meant.
>>
>> The original sentence was
>>
>> IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually with
>>>  an internationally neutral judicial framework
>>
>>
>> Could have typed it better:  "IANA could be managed as a truly global
>> function, gradually [under an environment] of an internationally neutral
>> judicial framework." This was a non-specific suggestion, with all the
>> necessary thinking to be done by the Community. If you ask me if such a
>> framework exists anywhere, then my answer is "No, I don't know". Was I
>> implying that the present environment of California jurisdiction is NOT
>> neutral ?  No, I did not. My thoughts were more about the ease of access by
>> the Global community. I felt that the present framework is expensive and
>> largely inaccessible by organizations and people from around the world.
>>
>> One more clarification:  This was not a suggestion of take the IANA
>> function to Hague :)
>>
>> Hope this explains the reasoning.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was
>>> suggested and what was being changed.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current role,
>>> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
>>> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
>>> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
>>> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
>>> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
>>> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
>>> >
>>> > (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
>>> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
>>> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
>>> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
>>> that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
>>> appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>>> >
>>> > Sivasubramanian M
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi Mawaki and De,
>>> >
>>> > Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48 hour
>>> consensus call soon.
>>> >
>>> > Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of
>>> using the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query
>>> about its use.
>>> >
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Sala
>>> >
>>> > On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Dear Friends,
>>> > I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
>>> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
>>> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
>>> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
>>> days of his life in intensive care.
>>> > I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but should
>>> be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the rest of my
>>> life :-)
>>> > I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>>> > So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the
>>> list with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time
>>> to devote to it?
>>> > It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
>>> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>>> > Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for it.
>>> Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>>> discussion.
>>> > it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's
>>> questions about the planning for the igf.
>>> > as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
>>> battery is choosing now to run out ....
>>> > best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>>> > deirdre
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Folks,
>>> >
>>> > I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>>> >
>>> > Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>> >
>>> > Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you
>>> guys burn it down ;)
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your understanding.
>>> >
>>> > Mawaki
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Dear All,
>>> > > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks.
>>> Mawaki
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>> functions.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>> >
>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>> > >
>>> > > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>> > >
>>> > > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>> > >
>>> > > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the
>>> global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost
>>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make
>>> effective participation affordable for developing nations and related
>>> Internet stakeholders.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>> >
>>> > Adam
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>> > > March xx, 2014.
>>> > >
>>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> > >
>>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> > >
>>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> India +91 99524 03099
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/815f4455/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 17:53:02 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:53:02 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mawaki and All,

I am copying the cleaned version here within the email as well as have
attached the documents both with tracked edits and also the cleaned
version. For ease of reference, see below:



On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
community. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest
civil society network formed since pre-WSIS.


 The IGC welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these
functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to
further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely
accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's resolve to involve all stakeholders in
the transitionary process toward a stakeholders-led administration of the
DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)


 The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
the global public interest.


We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
"inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
groups. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
citizens and civil society organizations across the world.


 We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
around the globe.



The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community
to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
improving access and enabling meaningful participation.

 Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
with an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable
and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
established for the new global Internet governance institution.



*The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus*

March 21, 2014.








On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> Just tidying up the statement to send it through.
>
> Sala
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here I am again. with the latest draft taking into account all the
>> comments above. Now, I'd like to urge you: this not the end of the story
>> and we will have all the consultation process for the formulation of the
>> transition proposal to make submit further inputs. If you have proposed an
>> edit that has not been included as proposed/worded, it is because there is
>> a reason --most likely distorting the intent of the drafters. If you can't
>> live with that and want explanation, please ask.
>>
>> I for one will personally take issue with anyone asking again for a
>> change in language in all but the last two paragraphs, unless they can show
>> a mistake or obvious contradiction is being made or they are just improving
>> on the English. Otherwise I'll begin to believe that some people here just
>> don't want IGC to be able to put anything out as a result of our work :)
>>
>> The title may be changed to shorten it (if you are so inclined.)
>>
>> Para. last but one: I have reformulated after Adam's
>> observations/questions in order to reflect more clearly its economic
>> motivation (the intention here was not to ask for funding developing
>> countries CS to attend meetings.) I hope it's clearer now and acceptable to
>> you.
>>
>> Last para.: I have re-worded it to reflect the initial language and
>> intent while trying to improve on clarity. I hope that is the case. I
>> wouldn't change it for a language that would be fuzzier than what we now
>> have if I, with all my limitations, am not convinced the replacing language
>> better serves the meaning intended.
>>
>> Timeline
>>
>> 1) Comments to be received before tomorrow (Friday) midnight
>>
>> 2) I will issue a two-day consensus call tomorrow (Friday) midight UTC/GMT
>>
>> 3) Sunday midnight: The statement will be made the official IGC statement
>> as is then.
>>
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>> Mawaki
>> -----------
>>
>> The IGC's Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
>> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community.
>>
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to end its
>> oversight role with the IANA functions by calling to start a process to
>> transition the full administration of those key Internet domain name
>> functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
>> and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of
>> the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
>> resolve to see all stakeholders involved in the consultation process as
>> well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a
>> stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (also referred to as the
>> "privatization of the DNS" by NTIA.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people concerned and who might be affected by the
>> resulting policies. For the Internet, the need to enhance meaningful
>> engagement globally is critical for such processes to be authentic and
>> their results more robust in heeding the global public interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
>> "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
>> from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
>> groups. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic multi-stakeholder model, we
>> stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>
>>
>>
>> We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the
>> global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
>> is critical that we continue to protect the openness and the global
>> availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
>> and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
>> Internet users around the globe.
>>
>>
>>
>> From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development
>> afforded by the Internet, the IGC urges the international community and the
>> global Internet community to give particular attention to the cost
>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce
>> economic barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders,
>> to the extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>> globalization of the IANA functions will be further completed by carefully
>> assessing the jurisdiction that should apply to the institution which will
>> result from this transition. This should be done taking into account, and
>> striving to balance across all stakeholders from all regions of the world,
>> the burden of accessing and making use of the applicable legal apparatus.
>> In this context, suitable and effective accountability and transparency
>> mechanisms will also be established for the new global Internet governance
>> institution.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March  24, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Adam Peake,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained
>>>> please.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In a later message Ian has suggested that the word 'judicial' could be
>>> dropped. If it is dropped, it is ok, I am still trying to answer your
>>> question for clarity on what I meant.
>>>
>>> The original sentence was
>>>
>>> IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually with
>>>>  an internationally neutral judicial framework
>>>
>>>
>>> Could have typed it better:  "IANA could be managed as a truly global
>>> function, gradually [under an environment] of an internationally neutral
>>> judicial framework." This was a non-specific suggestion, with all the
>>> necessary thinking to be done by the Community. If you ask me if such a
>>> framework exists anywhere, then my answer is "No, I don't know". Was I
>>> implying that the present environment of California jurisdiction is NOT
>>> neutral ?  No, I did not. My thoughts were more about the ease of access by
>>> the Global community. I felt that the present framework is expensive and
>>> largely inaccessible by organizations and people from around the world.
>>>
>>> One more clarification:  This was not a suggestion of take the IANA
>>> function to Hague :)
>>>
>>> Hope this explains the reasoning.
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was
>>>> suggested and what was being changed.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current
>>>> role, there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to
>>>> the structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to
>>>> be truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
>>>> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
>>>> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
>>>> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
>>>> >
>>>> > (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
>>>> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
>>>> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
>>>> that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
>>>> appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sivasubramanian M
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Mawaki and De,
>>>> >
>>>> > Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48
>>>> hour consensus call soon.
>>>> >
>>>> > Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of
>>>> using the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query
>>>> about its use.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best Regards,
>>>> > Sala
>>>> >
>>>> > On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Dear Friends,
>>>> > I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
>>>> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
>>>> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
>>>> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
>>>> days of his life in intensive care.
>>>> > I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but
>>>> should be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the
>>>> rest of my life :-)
>>>> > I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>>>> > So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the
>>>> list with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time
>>>> to devote to it?
>>>> > It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
>>>> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>>>> > Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for
>>>> it. Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>>>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>>>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>>>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>>>> discussion.
>>>> > it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's
>>>> questions about the planning for the igf.
>>>> > as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
>>>> battery is choosing now to run out ....
>>>> > best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>>>> > deirdre
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Folks,
>>>> >
>>>> > I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>>>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>>>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>>>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>>>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>>>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>>>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>>>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>>>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>>>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>>>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>>> >
>>>> > Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you
>>>> guys burn it down ;)
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for your understanding.
>>>> >
>>>> > Mawaki
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Dear All,
>>>> > > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks.
>>>> Mawaki
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>> functions.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>>>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>>>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>>> >
>>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>>>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>>>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>>>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>>>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the
>>>> global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost
>>>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make
>>>> effective participation affordable for developing nations and related
>>>> Internet stakeholders.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>>> >
>>>> > Adam
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> > > March xx, 2014.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> > >
>>>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>> India +91 99524 03099
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/eb586502/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC Draft Statement on NTIA with tracked edits.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/eb586502/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC Draft Statement on NTIA cleaned version.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 14970 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/eb586502/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 20 17:53:20 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:53:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp> <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8QnSZY-8JSQn4+g9LzW2n6q2n8Q5HQex_U9p32JMHXNg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sala,

Thanks and sorry for not holding to my word, i.e. that I was done with
this. As I wasn't seeing anything happening I thought we might be giving up
and wanted to submit at least the next draft, which is included in my
previous message you just responded you.

Mawaki



On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> Just tidying up the statement to send it through.
>
> Sala
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here I am again. with the latest draft taking into account all the
>> comments above. Now, I'd like to urge you: this not the end of the story
>> and we will have all the consultation process for the formulation of the
>> transition proposal to make submit further inputs. If you have proposed an
>> edit that has not been included as proposed/worded, it is because there is
>> a reason --most likely distorting the intent of the drafters. If you can't
>> live with that and want explanation, please ask.
>>
>> I for one will personally take issue with anyone asking again for a
>> change in language in all but the last two paragraphs, unless they can show
>> a mistake or obvious contradiction is being made or they are just improving
>> on the English. Otherwise I'll begin to believe that some people here just
>> don't want IGC to be able to put anything out as a result of our work :)
>>
>> The title may be changed to shorten it (if you are so inclined.)
>>
>> Para. last but one: I have reformulated after Adam's
>> observations/questions in order to reflect more clearly its economic
>> motivation (the intention here was not to ask for funding developing
>> countries CS to attend meetings.) I hope it's clearer now and acceptable to
>> you.
>>
>> Last para.: I have re-worded it to reflect the initial language and
>> intent while trying to improve on clarity. I hope that is the case. I
>> wouldn't change it for a language that would be fuzzier than what we now
>> have if I, with all my limitations, am not convinced the replacing language
>> better serves the meaning intended.
>>
>> Timeline
>>
>> 1) Comments to be received before tomorrow (Friday) midnight
>>
>> 2) I will issue a two-day consensus call tomorrow (Friday) midight UTC/GMT
>>
>> 3) Sunday midnight: The statement will be made the official IGC statement
>> as is then.
>>
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>> Mawaki
>> -----------
>>
>> The IGC's Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
>> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community.
>>
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to end its
>> oversight role with the IANA functions by calling to start a process to
>> transition the full administration of those key Internet domain name
>> functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
>> and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of
>> the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
>> resolve to see all stakeholders involved in the consultation process as
>> well as in the subsequent arrangements completing the transition toward a
>> stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (also referred to as the
>> "privatization of the DNS" by NTIA.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people concerned and who might be affected by the
>> resulting policies. For the Internet, the need to enhance meaningful
>> engagement globally is critical for such processes to be authentic and
>> their results more robust in heeding the global public interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
>> "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
>> from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
>> groups. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic multi-stakeholder model, we
>> stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>
>>
>>
>> We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the
>> global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
>> is critical that we continue to protect the openness and the global
>> availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
>> and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
>> Internet users around the globe.
>>
>>
>>
>> From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development
>> afforded by the Internet, the IGC urges the international community and the
>> global Internet community to give particular attention to the cost
>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce
>> economic barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders,
>> to the extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>> globalization of the IANA functions will be further completed by carefully
>> assessing the jurisdiction that should apply to the institution which will
>> result from this transition. This should be done taking into account, and
>> striving to balance across all stakeholders from all regions of the world,
>> the burden of accessing and making use of the applicable legal apparatus.
>> In this context, suitable and effective accountability and transparency
>> mechanisms will also be established for the new global Internet governance
>> institution.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March  24, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Adam Peake,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained
>>>> please.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In a later message Ian has suggested that the word 'judicial' could be
>>> dropped. If it is dropped, it is ok, I am still trying to answer your
>>> question for clarity on what I meant.
>>>
>>> The original sentence was
>>>
>>> IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually with
>>>>  an internationally neutral judicial framework
>>>
>>>
>>> Could have typed it better:  "IANA could be managed as a truly global
>>> function, gradually [under an environment] of an internationally neutral
>>> judicial framework." This was a non-specific suggestion, with all the
>>> necessary thinking to be done by the Community. If you ask me if such a
>>> framework exists anywhere, then my answer is "No, I don't know". Was I
>>> implying that the present environment of California jurisdiction is NOT
>>> neutral ?  No, I did not. My thoughts were more about the ease of access by
>>> the Global community. I felt that the present framework is expensive and
>>> largely inaccessible by organizations and people from around the world.
>>>
>>> One more clarification:  This was not a suggestion of take the IANA
>>> function to Hague :)
>>>
>>> Hope this explains the reasoning.
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was
>>>> suggested and what was being changed.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current
>>>> role, there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to
>>>> the structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to
>>>> be truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
>>>> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
>>>> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
>>>> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
>>>> >
>>>> > (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
>>>> indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
>>>> function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
>>>> that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
>>>> appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sivasubramanian M
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Mawaki and De,
>>>> >
>>>> > Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48
>>>> hour consensus call soon.
>>>> >
>>>> > Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of
>>>> using the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query
>>>> about its use.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best Regards,
>>>> > Sala
>>>> >
>>>> > On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Dear Friends,
>>>> > I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly carrying
>>>> nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election results more
>>>> or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London, an expected
>>>> event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the first few
>>>> days of his life in intensive care.
>>>> > I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but
>>>> should be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the
>>>> rest of my life :-)
>>>> > I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>>>> > So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the
>>>> list with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time
>>>> to devote to it?
>>>> > It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
>>>> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>>>> > Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for
>>>> it. Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>>>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>>>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>>>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>>>> discussion.
>>>> > it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's
>>>> questions about the planning for the igf.
>>>> > as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course my
>>>> battery is choosing now to run out ....
>>>> > best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>>>> > deirdre
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Folks,
>>>> >
>>>> > I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>>>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>>>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>>>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>>>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>>>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>>>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>>>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>>>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>>>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>>>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>>> >
>>>> > Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you
>>>> guys burn it down ;)
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for your understanding.
>>>> >
>>>> > Mawaki
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Dear All,
>>>> > > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks.
>>>> Mawaki
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
>>>> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish
>>>> the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>>> functions.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the IANA
>>>> functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to see
>>>> that in the 1st paragraph.
>>>> >
>>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide
>>>> ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>>> proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for
>>>> maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet while
>>>> continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and
>>>> furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the
>>>> global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost
>>>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make
>>>> effective participation affordable for developing nations and related
>>>> Internet stakeholders.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>>> >
>>>> > Adam
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> > > March xx, 2014.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> > >
>>>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>> India +91 99524 03099
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/cc5f9697/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 17:58:20 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:58:20 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8QnSZY-8JSQn4+g9LzW2n6q2n8Q5HQex_U9p32JMHXNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8QnSZY-8JSQn4+g9LzW2n6q2n8Q5HQex_U9p32JMHXNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC2Xc_aoJM7AEx4JDuCzpVBhZnfO+KHFk8okPg5GyRTMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki,

Developing statements in a world where we live in different timezones, and
commitments can be challenging. I should have communicated with you just
the same to ease your concerns.

Best Wishes,
Sala



On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sala,
>
> Thanks and sorry for not holding to my word, i.e. that I was done with
> this. As I wasn't seeing anything happening I thought we might be giving up
> and wanted to submit at least the next draft, which is included in my
> previous message you just responded you.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mawaki,
>>
>> Just tidying up the statement to send it through.
>>
>> Sala
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Here I am again. with the latest draft taking into account all the
>>> comments above. Now, I'd like to urge you: this not the end of the story
>>> and we will have all the consultation process for the formulation of the
>>> transition proposal to make submit further inputs. If you have proposed an
>>> edit that has not been included as proposed/worded, it is because there is
>>> a reason --most likely distorting the intent of the drafters. If you can't
>>> live with that and want explanation, please ask.
>>>
>>> I for one will personally take issue with anyone asking again for a
>>> change in language in all but the last two paragraphs, unless they can show
>>> a mistake or obvious contradiction is being made or they are just improving
>>> on the English. Otherwise I'll begin to believe that some people here just
>>> don't want IGC to be able to put anything out as a result of our work :)
>>>
>>> The title may be changed to shorten it (if you are so inclined.)
>>>
>>> Para. last but one: I have reformulated after Adam's
>>> observations/questions in order to reflect more clearly its economic
>>> motivation (the intention here was not to ask for funding developing
>>> countries CS to attend meetings.) I hope it's clearer now and acceptable to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Last para.: I have re-worded it to reflect the initial language and
>>> intent while trying to improve on clarity. I hope that is the case. I
>>> wouldn't change it for a language that would be fuzzier than what we now
>>> have if I, with all my limitations, am not convinced the replacing language
>>> better serves the meaning intended.
>>>
>>> Timeline
>>>
>>> 1) Comments to be received before tomorrow (Friday) midnight
>>>
>>> 2) I will issue a two-day consensus call tomorrow (Friday) midight
>>> UTC/GMT
>>>
>>> 3) Sunday midnight: The statement will be made the official IGC
>>> statement as is then.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>> -----------
>>>
>>> The IGC's Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning
>>> IANA Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community.
>>>
>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to end its
>>> oversight role with the IANA functions by calling to start a process to
>>> transition the full administration of those key Internet domain name
>>> functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this
>>> decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the
>>> stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve
>>> toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC
>>> welcomes NTIA's resolve to see all stakeholders involved in the
>>> consultation process as well as in the subsequent arrangements completing
>>> the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (also
>>> referred to as the "privatization of the DNS" by NTIA.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>> inclusiveness of all people concerned and who might be affected by the
>>> resulting policies. For the Internet, the need to enhance meaningful
>>> engagement globally is critical for such processes to be authentic and
>>> their results more robust in heeding the global public interest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from
>>> the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well
>>> as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
>>> groups. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic multi-stakeholder model, we
>>> stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and
>>> the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal.
>>> It is critical that we continue to protect the openness and the global
>>> availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
>>> and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
>>> Internet users around the globe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development
>>> afforded by the Internet, the IGC urges the international community and the
>>> global Internet community to give particular attention to the cost
>>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce
>>> economic barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders,
>>> to the extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>> globalization of the IANA functions will be further completed by carefully
>>> assessing the jurisdiction that should apply to the institution which will
>>> result from this transition. This should be done taking into account, and
>>> striving to balance across all stakeholders from all regions of the world,
>>> the burden of accessing and making use of the applicable legal apparatus.
>>> In this context, suitable and effective accountability and transparency
>>> mechanisms will also be established for the new global Internet governance
>>> institution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>
>>> March  24, 2014.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Adam Peake,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "internationally neutral judicial framework" -- can this be explained
>>>>> please.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a later message Ian has suggested that the word 'judicial' could be
>>>> dropped. If it is dropped, it is ok, I am still trying to answer your
>>>> question for clarity on what I meant.
>>>>
>>>> The original sentence was
>>>>
>>>> IANA function would be managed as a truly global function, gradually
>>>>> with
>>>>>  an internationally neutral judicial framework
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could have typed it better:  "IANA could be managed as a truly global
>>>> function, gradually [under an environment] of an internationally neutral
>>>> judicial framework." This was a non-specific suggestion, with all the
>>>> necessary thinking to be done by the Community. If you ask me if such a
>>>> framework exists anywhere, then my answer is "No, I don't know". Was I
>>>> implying that the present environment of California jurisdiction is NOT
>>>> neutral ?  No, I did not. My thoughts were more about the ease of access by
>>>> the Global community. I felt that the present framework is expensive and
>>>> largely inaccessible by organizations and people from around the world.
>>>>
>>>> One more clarification:  This was not a suggestion of take the IANA
>>>> function to Hague :)
>>>>
>>>> Hope this explains the reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> Sivasubramanian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Thanks, Sala. The following shows the first time that change was
>>>>> suggested and what was being changed.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA's current
>>>>> role, there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to
>>>>> the structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to
>>>>> be truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
>>>>> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
>>>>> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
>>>>> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > (Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more
>>>>> gently, indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance
>>>>> Caucus expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly
>>>>> global function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial
>>>>> framework and that the new governance institution would constantly evolve
>>>>> suitable and appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sivasubramanian M
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Hi Mawaki and De,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Happy to help with wrapping this statement up and initiate the 48
>>>>> hour consensus call soon.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Before we bring it to a close soon can you clarify the purpose of
>>>>> using the words "judicial" in the statement as there has been some query
>>>>> about its use.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best Regards,
>>>>> > Sala
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 19 Mar 2014 01:02, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Dear Friends,
>>>>> > I have to say a huge thank you to Mawaki, who has been nobly
>>>>> carrying nearly the whole load for the last few weeks. The IGC election
>>>>> results more or less coincided with the arrival of my grandson in London,
>>>>> an expected event but not by emergency caesarian with the baby spending the
>>>>> first few days of his life in intensive care.
>>>>> > I needed to extend my planned visit for an extra two weeks, but
>>>>> should be going home on Sunday when I will be able to catch up with the
>>>>> rest of my life :-)
>>>>> > I have been trying to write this message for the last two hours.
>>>>> > So can I add my voice to Mawaki's appeal - is there someone on the
>>>>> list with a strong interest in the current statement and some quality time
>>>>> to devote to it?
>>>>> > It has taken me 3 hours to compose this message which i am now
>>>>> completing one handed, my other arm being currently occupied.
>>>>> > Suresh wrote recently about collegiality. Now is a good moment for
>>>>> it. Exchanging ideas, listening to one another and moving towards
>>>>> understanding, exposing the extreme views so that we are at least all aware
>>>>> of where the differences are and can begin to negotiate them towards a
>>>>> common position, this is surely the most important function of this
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>> > it would also be good to see some more feedback on anriette's
>>>>> questions about the planning for the igf.
>>>>> > as soon as i have two hands to plug in the power cable - of course
>>>>> my battery is choosing now to run out ....
>>>>> > best wishes and thank you again to mawaki
>>>>> > deirdre
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 18 March 2014 09:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Folks,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I went to bed in the wee hours of the morning thinking this was now
>>>>> going to be a formality to conclude. I have planned to devote the day (and
>>>>> fully concentrate) on a report which is long overdue and which, if
>>>>> delivered, will help me put food on the table and pay the bills. On
>>>>> Wednesday (well, tomorrow) I am due to travel for another fieldwork and
>>>>> won't be much available online. So you will probably won't be hearing a lot
>>>>> from me in the coming two weeks or so.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sorry, someone else will have to take over with the last wave of
>>>>> comments and finish this job. If Deirdre is not available either to do so,
>>>>> I'd suggest one of the former cocos to please step in and help with this
>>>>> (in any case, at least as my interim until I'm regularly back online.) Sala
>>>>> is convalescent and Norbert is not responding. Any volunteer?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Someone does need to constantly keep an eye on the house before you
>>>>> guys burn it down ;)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks for your understanding.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Mawaki
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Dear All,
>>>>> > > Shall we call for consensus on the following statement? Thanks.
>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National
>>>>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
>>>>> intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key
>>>>> Internet domain name functions.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > why mention ICANN?  NTIA is starting a process to transition the
>>>>> IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community.  WOuld be good to
>>>>> see that in the 1st paragraph.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>>>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>>>>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>>>>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. IGC particularly
>>>>> acknowledges with satisfaction the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>>>>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the subsequent
>>>>> arrangements completing the transition toward a stakeholders-led
>>>>> administration of the DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as  the
>>>>> privatization of the DNS.)
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
>>>>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>>> its policy decision outcomes. We understand the multi-stakeholder
>>>>> governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the
>>>>> private sector led model, as well as from a model that only accommodates
>>>>> technical standards setting groups. In the inclusive spirit of that model,
>>>>> we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>>> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Also supportive of the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>>>>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>>>>> transition proposal, the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need
>>>>> for maintaining the openness and the global availability of the Internet
>>>>> while continuously improving on its security and at the same time
>>>>> preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the
>>>>> globe.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > In this process, IGC urges the international community and the
>>>>> global Internet community to give a particular attention to the cost
>>>>> structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make
>>>>> effective participation affordable for developing nations and related
>>>>> Internet stakeholders.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > effective participation, cost the only or main barrier?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>>> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
>>>>> with an internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework, and
>>>>> that suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will
>>>>> be established for the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "internationally appropriate and neutral judicial framework"
>>>>>  Judicial?  And calling for an "institution"?  (arrangement).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Adam
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>> > > March xx, 2014.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>>> India +91 99524 03099
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/34482804/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 18:11:49 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:11:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp> <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com>

I'm replying to this "clean" draft;

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mawaki and All,
>
> I am copying the cleaned version here within the email as well as have
> attached the documents both with tracked edits and also the cleaned version.
> For ease of reference, see below:
>
>
>
> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
> intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
> community. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest
> civil society network formed since pre-WSIS.
>
>
>  The IGC welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these
> functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to
> further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely
> accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's resolve to involve all stakeholders in the
> transitionary process toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS
> (what NTIA has been referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)
>
>
>  The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an inclusive,
> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the
> global public interest.
>
>
> We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
> "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
> from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
> groups.


Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
accommodates technical standards setting groups."


I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
would have objected.




In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
> stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens
> and civil society organizations across the world.
>
>
>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
> global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It is
> critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability of
> the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same
> time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around
> the globe.
>
>


I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.

The rest is fine by me.


>
> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community
> to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
> emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
> affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
> Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in improving
> access and enabling meaningful participation.
>
>  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with
> an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable and
> effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for
> the new global Internet governance institution.
>
>
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March 21, 2014.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Cheers,

McTim

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 20 18:38:21 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:38:21 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>

In other words

 

.edu is a "common good" ... for the US !

 

Best

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 20/03/14 11:40
> De : "Roland Perry" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
> 
> In message 
> , at 
> 09:26:50 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong 
> writes
> >I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it 
> >appears that .edu extensions are not available
> 
> They are, but you also have to qualify. Does this describe your 
> situation:
> 
> "Only U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally 
> accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of 
> Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies may obtain an Internet name 
> in the .edu domain."
> 
> "applicants [must] be located within the United States (including U.S. 
> territories and possessions); or to be licensed, chartered, or 
> incorporated within the United States (including U.S. territories and 
> possessions); or to be otherwise officially recognized by a U.S. state 
> or federal government agency (including U.S. territories and 
> possessions)."
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/63a3582a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 19:01:54 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:01:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com> <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>
Message-ID: <CADFgh13KV-iYadYTs=S1D+A_o8aXTRNoMfqv=7WNtZQ4umUE2A@mail.gmail.com>

Correct.  One more reason to have ".edu.Africa"

Nnenna


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK
<jlfullsack at orange.fr>wrote:

> In other words
>
>
>
> .edu is a "common good" ... for the US !
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 20/03/14 11:40
> > De : "Roland Perry"
> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : Re: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
> >
> > In message
> > , at
> > 09:26:50 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong
> > writes
> > >I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it
> > >appears that .edu extensions are not available
> >
> > They are, but you also have to qualify. Does this describe your
> > situation:
> >
> > "Only U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally
> > accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of
> > Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies may obtain an Internet name
> > in the .edu domain."
> >
> > "applicants [must] be located within the United States (including U.S.
> > territories and possessions); or to be licensed, chartered, or
> > incorporated within the United States (including U.S. territories and
> > possessions); or to be otherwise officially recognized by a U.S. state
> > or federal government agency (including U.S. territories and
> > possessions)."
> > --
> > Roland Perry
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/60bea504/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 19:26:49 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:26:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kwasi,

As you would have seen from the flurry of emails following your post, .edu
is reserved for American accredited educational institutions. All other
countries, usually have something like:-

InsertName.edu.au or InsertName.edu.ccTLD

For end users, the shorter the domain the easier it is to remember, hence
preference for .edu
However, there are also merits in having a .edu.ccTLD or .edu.africa for
instance as it helps users distinguish location.

Just as .gov is reserved for the US and its territories whilst other
countries have .gov.fj or .gov.ccTLD. Noting that some countries use
.gouv.ccTLD

Some of these things developed because of precedent and as a consequence of
innovation in the TLD space starting in the US etc.

Best Regards,
Sala


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kwasi,
>
> Here you go: https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/
>
> Katim
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong <
> kboakye at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>>
>> I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it appears
>> that .edu extensions are not available.
>>
>> Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a .edu extension
>> registered?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kwasi
>>
>> --
>> *We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action
>> always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. *-- *Frank
>> Tibolt*
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/e0b26a22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 20:57:49 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:57:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiD_GYdNepUbEsNkyVSYbJdg6UyHUrDrQ6weC5fN2SS=Hg@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
> Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
> accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>
>
> I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
> would have objected.
>
> [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it from the
> existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the text. do you
> have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can wrap this
> up?]
>
>
> In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
> > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> citizens
> > and civil society organizations across the world.
> >
> >
> >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
> > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal.
> It is
> > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
> of
> > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same
> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
> around
> > the globe.
> >
> >
>
>
> I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
> liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
>
> The rest is fine by me.
>
> [Sala: Noted]

>
> >
> > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
> community
> > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
> > emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
> > affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
> > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
> improving
> > access and enabling meaningful participation.
> >
> >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
> with
> > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable
> and
> > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established
> for
> > the new global Internet governance institution.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
> >
> > March 21, 2014.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/c1eb0ee3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar 20 21:04:02 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:34:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiD_GYdNepUbEsNkyVSYbJdg6UyHUrDrQ6weC5fN2SS=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiD_GYdNepUbEsNkyVSYbJdg6UyHUrDrQ6weC5fN2SS=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <144e22a7830.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I would just suggest deleting it.


On 21 March 2014 6:28:36 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> > Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
> > accommodates technical standards setting groups."
> >
> >
> > I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
> > would have objected.
> >
> > [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it from the
> > existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the text. do you
> > have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can wrap this
> > up?]
> >
> >
> > In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
> > > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> > > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> > citizens
> > > and civil society organizations across the world.
> > >
> > >
> > >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
> > > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal.
> > It is
> > > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
> > of
> > > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same
> > > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
> > around
> > > the globe.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
> > liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
> >
> > The rest is fine by me.
> >
> > [Sala: Noted]
>
> >
> > >
> > > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
> > community
> > > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
> > > emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
> > > affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
> > > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
> > improving
> > > access and enabling meaningful participation.
> > >
> > >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> > > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
> > with
> > > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable
> > and
> > > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established
> > for
> > > the new global Internet governance institution.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
> > >
> > > March 21, 2014.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > McTim
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/99b05ca3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 21:12:58 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:12:58 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <144e22a7830.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiD_GYdNepUbEsNkyVSYbJdg6UyHUrDrQ6weC5fN2SS=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<144e22a7830.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBtnJ-x+xO63AuOLnjzbO-=cATxoMuPXZL2w9CHVYsudw@mail.gmail.com>

*"We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
"inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
groups."*

Hi Suresh and McTim - Suresh I note your suggestion to delete it. Perhaps
we can find some other way to say this. The current phrase attempts to
describe what "multistakeholder is not".


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

>   I would just suggest deleting it.
>
> On 21 March 2014 6:28:36 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
>>> accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>>
>>>
>>> I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
>>> would have objected.
>>>
>>> [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it from
>>> the existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the text. do
>>> you have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can wrap
>>> this up?]
>>>
>>>
>>> In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
>>> > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>> > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
>>> citizens
>>> > and civil society organizations across the world.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and
>>> the
>>> > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal.
>>> It is
>>> > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global
>>> availability of
>>> > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
>>> same
>>> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
>>> around
>>> > the globe.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
>>> liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
>>>
>>> The rest is fine by me.
>>>
>>> [Sala: Noted]
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
>>> community
>>> > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
>>> > emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
>>> > affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
>>> > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
>>> improving
>>> > access and enabling meaningful participation.
>>> >
>>> >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more
>>> complete with
>>> > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable
>>> and
>>> > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
>>> established for
>>> > the new global Internet governance institution.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>>> >
>>> > March 21, 2014.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/b7ced1da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar 20 21:23:14 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:53:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBtnJ-x+xO63AuOLnjzbO-=cATxoMuPXZL2w9CHVYsudw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiD_GYdNepUbEsNkyVSYbJdg6UyHUrDrQ6weC5fN2SS=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <144e22a7830.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiBtnJ-x+xO63AuOLnjzbO-=cATxoMuPXZL2w9CHVYsudw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <144e23c1400.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Yes, the point mctim makes is that there is no such 'governance by 
technical standards groups'. Deleting it does not take away their being a 
stakeholder.


On 21 March 2014 6:42:59 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> *"We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the
> "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as
> from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
> groups."*
>
> Hi Suresh and McTim - Suresh I note your suggestion to delete it. Perhaps
> we can find some other way to say this. The current phrase attempts to
> describe what "multistakeholder is not".
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>
> >   I would just suggest deleting it.
> >
> > On 21 March 2014 6:28:36 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
> >>> accommodates technical standards setting groups."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
> >>> would have objected.
> >>>
> >>> [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it from
> >>> the existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the text. do
> >>> you have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can wrap
> >>> this up?]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
> >>> > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
> >>> > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users,
> >>> citizens
> >>> > and civil society organizations across the world.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and
> >>> the
> >>> > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal.
> >>> It is
> >>> > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global
> >>> availability of
> >>> > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
> >>> same
> >>> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
> >>> around
> >>> > the globe.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
> >>> liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
> >>>
> >>> The rest is fine by me.
> >>>
> >>> [Sala: Noted]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
> >>> community
> >>> > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
> >>> > emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
> >>> > affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
> >>> > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
> >>> improving
> >>> > access and enabling meaningful participation.
> >>> >
> >>> >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
> >>> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more
> >>> complete with
> >>> > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable
> >>> and
> >>> > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
> >>> established for
> >>> > the new global Internet governance institution.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
> >>> >
> >>> > March 21, 2014.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> McTim
> >>>
> >>
> >>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/56d440a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 21:52:25 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:52:25 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Revised version attached. McTim - I have made the adjustment to the
contentious phrase which is in "red" below.


On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
community. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest
civil society network formed since pre-WSIS.


 The IGC welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these
functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to
further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely
accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's resolve to involve all stakeholders in
the transitionary process toward a stakeholders-led administration of the
DNS (what NTIA has been referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)


  The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
the global public interest.


*The multistakeholder governance model should include civil society,
private sector and public sector.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.


  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
around the globe.



The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community
to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
improving access and enabling meaningful participation.


  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete
with an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable
and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
established for the new global Internet governance institution.



*The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus*

March 21, 2014.





>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net
> > wrote:
>
>>   Perfect. Thanks.
>>
>> On 21 March 2014 7:02:25 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Given that multistakeholder is taken to include and mean the presence of
>>> civil society, private sector and governments.
>>> Ok so shall we edit the phrase and make it positive instead of
>>> "negative".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"We understand the mulch-stakeholder governance model as distinct from
>>> the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well
>>> as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting
>>> groups."*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Suggested revised phrase and replacement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *The multistakeholder governance model should include civil society,
>>> private sector and public sector.*
>>>
>>> *What are your thoughts? *
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Yes, the point mctim makes is that there is no such 'governance by
>>>> technical standards groups'. Deleting it does not take away their being a
>>>> stakeholder.
>>>>
>>>> On 21 March 2014 6:42:59 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *"We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct
>>>>> from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as
>>>>> well as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards
>>>>> setting groups."*
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Suresh and McTim - Suresh I note your suggestion to delete it.
>>>>> Perhaps we can find some other way to say this. The current phrase attempts
>>>>> to describe what "multistakeholder is not".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>>>>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   I would just suggest deleting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21 March 2014 6:28:36 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
>>>>>>>> accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
>>>>>>>> would have objected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it
>>>>>>>> from the existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the
>>>>>>>> text. do you have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can
>>>>>>>> wrap this up?]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
>>>>>>>> > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>>>>>> > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet
>>>>>>>> users, citizens
>>>>>>>> > and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>>>>>>>> proposal. It is
>>>>>>>> > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global
>>>>>>>> availability of
>>>>>>>> > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at
>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet
>>>>>>>> users around
>>>>>>>> > the globe.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
>>>>>>>> liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rest is fine by me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Sala: Noted]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>> > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>> > emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>>>>>>>> participation
>>>>>>>> > affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>>>>>>>> stakeholders.
>>>>>>>> > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical
>>>>>>>> in improving
>>>>>>>> > access and enabling meaningful participation.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>>>>>> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more
>>>>>>>> complete with
>>>>>>>> > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that
>>>>>>>> suitable and
>>>>>>>> > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be
>>>>>>>> established for
>>>>>>>> > the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > March 21, 2014.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/8a0fe206/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar 20 22:13:20 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:43:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiD1CVSFMo7vJOp_85xz330WG8URHM=Xyun-VpYchgQF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8=e7ocyga1Ri=w8wa4AjUz0sLY_Ww27WhB-7Tgzu89EA@mail.gmail.com> <F677C3B6-94BE-4748-A2DA-1405BCDF7EF8@glocom.ac.jp> <CACTo+v-PO1+eLLZ-i7sQCcOnx9+mrmi4caCPK_WuBWc6FLuBcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN4f4dcbbP=w9HDTCfigjb--=GOOZhEOmd05Hg7H4PL+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAJaJEHXsd3nPz6ZO_gd3uDwL_TDuz8KfY2MZJQj1=1hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_1YPnMMyLUT735QfYm0b68Egyh6h1cYYKiyLN5EQBmQw@mail.gmail.com> <FD32C43C-88DB-4472-9D31-3F41204312EC@glocom.ac.jp> <CAHyAo0EqyVC6-WMZ0thQJfEq7keZU_MgaGwmAgk9+VksSebDXA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8kGqC2toXzCH1_xhtcgwKdHZA1hwDMqBMs6m03cJwnLA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiBSW9WsjsR55hUK=k6iQS6j9h5dfUOtHsiRVYvhWQ=e3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAyqBu72NYMnic9KmaodRUuG3ZXk-KA8KWV8ESh3C0R9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxjSVTkoimJsnXpgDqv7M2toYgAB_p=MsY1U-m447uDkWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiD_GYdNepUbEsNkyVSYbJdg6UyHUrDrQ6weC5fN2SS=Hg@mail.gmail.com> <144e22a7830.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiBtnJ-x+xO63AuOLnjzbO-=cATxoMuPXZL2w9CHVYsudw
 @mail.gmail.com> <144e23c1400.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiC8ufUsMDL2od+t2HHgnufxth1FPSLJQ+2VF_0SCUMcmQ@mail.gmail.com> <144e251ab58.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiD1CVSFMo7vJOp_85xz330WG8URHM=Xyun-VpYchgQF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7AF08BA3-C331-427A-997C-D0765FCB3744@hserus.net>

Accidentally replied just to Sala.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 7:18, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Suresh. You should also tell the entire list, will make the final changes and perhaps you can comment on the revision then.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Perfect. Thanks.
>> 
>>> On 21 March 2014 7:02:25 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Given that multistakeholder is taken to include and mean the presence of civil society, private sector and governments. 
>>> Ok so shall we edit the phrase and make it positive instead of "negative".
>>> 
>>> "We understand the mulch-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>> 
>>> Suggested revised phrase and replacement.
>>> 
>>> The multistakeholder governance model should include civil society, private sector and public sector.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the point mctim makes is that there is no such 'governance by technical standards groups'. Deleting it does not take away their being a stakeholder.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 21 March 2014 6:42:59 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Suresh and McTim - Suresh I note your suggestion to delete it. Perhaps we can find some other way to say this. The current phrase attempts to describe what "multistakeholder is not". 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I would just suggest deleting it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 21 March 2014 6:28:36 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
>>>>>>>> accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
>>>>>>>> would have objected.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it from the existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the text. do you have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can wrap this up?]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
>>>>>>>> > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>>>>>> > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens
>>>>>>>> > and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
>>>>>>>> > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It is
>>>>>>>> > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability of
>>>>>>>> > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same
>>>>>>>> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around
>>>>>>>> > the globe.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
>>>>>>>> liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The rest is fine by me.
>>>>>>> [Sala: Noted] 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community
>>>>>>>> > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
>>>>>>>> > emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
>>>>>>>> > affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
>>>>>>>> > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in improving
>>>>>>>> > access and enabling meaningful participation.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>>>>>> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with
>>>>>>>> > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable and
>>>>>>>> > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for
>>>>>>>> > the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > March 21, 2014.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> McTim
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/68fa8b99/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 22:19:29 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:19:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>

I would prefer my formulation below.

It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.

I have used html formatting, apologies for that.


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>

>
>   The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
> the global public interest.
>
>
> *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
> Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>
>
>
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140320/5a590ef8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 22:21:39 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:21:39 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC+2NeYs23JC8HRAs4TpOqxWAskf6RgnWC2f_wbrS=8EQ@mail.gmail.com>

Good point McTim. Will make the relevant adjustments.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:19 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would prefer my formulation below.
>
> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>
> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>   The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
>> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
>> the global public interest.
>>
>>
>> *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
>> Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/74fb2499/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar 20 22:32:19 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:02:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.


On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would prefer my formulation below.
>
> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>
> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >   The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all 
> inclusive,
> > bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> > inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> > its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
> > engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
> > the global public interest.
> >
> >
> > *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
> > Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
> > Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
> > make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
> > Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/f308d1de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 03:38:25 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:38:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com> <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-_LNCeTexXNV70hi5d7eLG2kO4poGh=eob1SA1pSaVOg@mail.gmail.com>

My last word in this process and I let you guys wrap up with whatever you
wish. Promised! (It just happens that as I was at the hotel yesterdays and
still am this early before I hit the road, I'm reading your discussions and
try to respond as I can. But I will be starting the actual fieldwork in a
couple of hours and will no longer bother you.)

That sentence is obviously (at least it should be obvious to any attentive
reader that it is) a theoretical construction, one that is based (at least
in part) on hypotheticals in order to say, as Sala pointed out, what
multi-stakeholder(ism) (M/S) is NOT.

Has M/S ever been inter-governmental? Not even a chance! Yet, we also say
"We understand the M/S as distinct from the intergovernmental model" etc. I
do understand the intergovernmental model exists, even if it anything but
M/S. And you're saying On the other hand, beyond referring to and
supporting M/S, the NTIA's announcement explicitly lists a number of I*
organizations for ICANN to work with while it doesn't mention "civil
society" not even once and anything "governmental" is only mentioned to be
excluded. So yes, some may say there is a risk to have a governance model
led or dominated by such technical standards bodies, etc. BTW, when IETF
develops standards (and we understand one has to have some technical
expertise and ideas win based on..., well, technical merit, but) is there
ever a point where there is a debate about societal implications of those
standards? If there ever was, are there other stakeholders involved than
the same people who are conversant in technical standards
development/specification and who actually developed the said standards?
And isn't there a form of governance that comes with the standards thus
developed?

Anyway, that's the context --although, again, we may admit that that case
is just a hypothetical here and doesn't need to be necessarily more than
that, as the sentence is theoretical (and a negative.)

Thanks, and I bow out --this time for sure.

Mawaki
P.S. If you could, please read the version I posted yesterday and see if
there's anything that may be useful to carry over in yours, as I wrote it
trying to address all the questions raised in this cycle, with more context
than anyone else having been the main drafter. I now leave it in your
hands, thanks.



On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

>   More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.
>
> On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer my formulation below.
>>
>> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>>
>> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>   The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
>>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
>>> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
>>> the global public interest.
>>>
>>>
>>> *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
>>> Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/97d32260/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 03:40:33 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:40:33 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCErACoBifqdmL2w=poQb75oFypi-+tx+6Jg5US6Y+CCg@mail.gmail.com>

*Dear Coordinators and the IGC:*

Kindly find the revised cleaned version of the Statement.

*IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. *



On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
community.



The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil
society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and
appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
resolve to involve all stakeholders in the transition toward a
stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what the NTIA has been
referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)



The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all
inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
the global public interest.



The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.



 We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
around the globe.



The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community
to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in
improving access and enabling meaningful participation.



For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org





*Ends*






On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

>   More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.
>
> On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer my formulation below.
>>
>> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>>
>> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>   The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
>>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
>>> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
>>> the global public interest.
>>>
>>>
>>> *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
>>> Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/a07f952c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC Statement Responding to NTIA Final Version 21.3.14.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 12511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/a07f952c/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Mar 21 04:04:03 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:34:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net>

The WCIT "Freedom of expression storm troopers" should note, "“More 
communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than 
there are in Russia about Russians, Mr. Snowden said."

Guru


  More revelations to come, says Snowden

March 20, 2014

The former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden emerged from his 
Russian exile Tuesday in the form of a remotely-controlled robot to 
promise more sensational revelations about U.S. spying programmes.

Mr. Snowden’s face appeared on a screen as he manoeuvred the wheeled 
android around a stage at the TED gathering, addressing an audience in 
Vancouver without ever leaving his secret hideaway.

“There are absolutely more revelations to come,” he said. “Some of the 
most important reporting to be done is yet to come.”

Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who has been 
charged in the United States with espionage, dismissed the public debate 
about whether he is a heroic whistleblower or traitor. Instead, he used 
the conference organised by educational non-profit organisation TED 
(“Technology Entertainment Design”), to call for people worldwide to 
fight for privacy and Internet freedom.

Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee briefly joined Mr. Snowden’s interview 
with TED curator Chris Anderson, and came down in the hero camp. When 
Mr. Anderson posed the question to the TED audience — known for famous, 
innovative, and influential attendees — the idea that Mr. Snowden was a 
force for good met with applause. “Hero patriot or traitor; I would say 
I am an American citizen just like anyone else,” Mr. Snowden said. “What 
really matters here is the kind of government we want; the kind of 
Internet we want.” He said he was inspired to pass a huge trove of NSA 
files to reporters when he saw U.S. spying tactics going too far and 
intruding into the private data of millions of Internet and telephone 
customers.

Mr. Snowden argued that if he had gone to the U.S. Congress with his 
concerns he would have risked being “buried along with the information.” 
He instead urged the “adversarial press” to challenge government and 
ignite public debate “without putting national security at risk.” He 
argued that the dangers critics have played up regarding disclosure of 
information have not materialised, and insisted that he remains 
comfortable with his decisions. He depicted the NSA’s Prism programme 
for getting user information from Internet firms as a way for the U.S. 
government to “deputise corporate America to do its dirty work.” And he 
blasted a U.S. secret court for seldom rejecting National Security 
Agency requests to compel Internet titans to turn over user data and 
U.S. legislators for showing little oversight.

Mr. Snowden urged Internet companies to stand up against online snooping 
by encrypting online activity by default so spies could easily note 
anything from book browsing at Amazon.com to visiting websites.

People should be able to book air travel, order books, make phone calls 
and send text messages without worrying about how it will look to an 
agent of the government, he declared.

“More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans 
than there are in Russia about Russians,” Mr. Snowden said. He argued 
that the NSA was making the U.S., and the world, less safe by lobbying 
for weak standards that could open back doors into online venues or 
services such as online commerce or banking. “Our basic freedoms are not 
a partisan issue,” he said. “It is up to us to protect them; it is up to 
us to preserve the open Internet.” Mr. Snowden endorsed the campaign by 
Berners-Lee for a global Magna Carta laying out values and rights on the 
Internet. “A Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need,” Mr. 
Snowden said.

Mr. Anderson said that the NSA had been invited to take part in the TED 
chat with Mr. Snowden but it did not work out “for logistical reasons.” 
— AFP

SOURCE - 
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/more-revelations-to-come-says-snowden/article5807667.ece
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/80c89609/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 21 04:15:52 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:45:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net> <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net>

Stormtroopers eh?   Interesting specialized unit of the Nazi party in WW 2 (the Sturm Abteilung) and before that, shock troops deployed in Imperial Germany around the time of WW 1 (stoßtruppen)

Are you calling the freedom of expression types at wcit nazis, Guru?  

As I recall I got suspended from the list for much the same sort of reference not so long back, and it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, and a remarkable benefit to the list, for you to be ejected as well.  I would request the co-cos to determine whether this is possible.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 13:34, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
> The WCIT "Freedom of expression storm troopers" should note, "“More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians, Mr. Snowden said."
> Guru
> More revelations to come, says Snowden
> 
> March 20, 2014
> 
> The former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden emerged from his Russian exile Tuesday in the form of a remotely-controlled robot to promise more sensational revelations about U.S. spying programmes.
> 
> Mr. Snowden’s face appeared on a screen as he manoeuvred the wheeled android around a stage at the TED gathering, addressing an audience in Vancouver without ever leaving his secret hideaway.
> 
> “There are absolutely more revelations to come,” he said. “Some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come.”
> 
> Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who has been charged in the United States with espionage, dismissed the public debate about whether he is a heroic whistleblower or traitor. Instead, he used the conference organised by educational non-profit organisation TED (“Technology Entertainment Design”), to call for people worldwide to fight for privacy and Internet freedom.
> 
> Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee briefly joined Mr. Snowden’s interview with TED curator Chris Anderson, and came down in the hero camp. When Mr. Anderson posed the question to the TED audience — known for famous, innovative, and influential attendees — the idea that Mr. Snowden was a force for good met with applause. “Hero patriot or traitor; I would say I am an American citizen just like anyone else,” Mr. Snowden said. “What really matters here is the kind of government we want; the kind of Internet we want.” He said he was inspired to pass a huge trove of NSA files to reporters when he saw U.S. spying tactics going too far and intruding into the private data of millions of Internet and telephone customers.
> 
> Mr. Snowden argued that if he had gone to the U.S. Congress with his concerns he would have risked being “buried along with the information.” He instead urged the “adversarial press” to challenge government and ignite public debate “without putting national security at risk.” He argued that the dangers critics have played up regarding disclosure of information have not materialised, and insisted that he remains comfortable with his decisions. He depicted the NSA’s Prism programme for getting user information from Internet firms as a way for the U.S. government to “deputise corporate America to do its dirty work.” And he blasted a U.S. secret court for seldom rejecting National Security Agency requests to compel Internet titans to turn over user data and U.S. legislators for showing little oversight.
> 
> Mr. Snowden urged Internet companies to stand up against online snooping by encrypting online activity by default so spies could easily note anything from book browsing at Amazon.com to visiting websites.
> 
> People should be able to book air travel, order books, make phone calls and send text messages without worrying about how it will look to an agent of the government, he declared.
> 
> “More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians,” Mr. Snowden said. He argued that the NSA was making the U.S., and the world, less safe by lobbying for weak standards that could open back doors into online venues or services such as online commerce or banking. “Our basic freedoms are not a partisan issue,” he said. “It is up to us to protect them; it is up to us to preserve the open Internet.” Mr. Snowden endorsed the campaign by Berners-Lee for a global Magna Carta laying out values and rights on the Internet. “A Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need,” Mr. Snowden said.
> 
> Mr. Anderson said that the NSA had been invited to take part in the TED chat with Mr. Snowden but it did not work out “for logistical reasons.” — AFP
> 
> SOURCE - http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/more-revelations-to-come-says-snowden/article5807667.ece
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/c09ac8f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 04:24:08 2014
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:24:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCErACoBifqdmL2w=poQb75oFypi-+tx+6Jg5US6Y+CCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com> <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiCErACoBifqdmL2w=poQb75oFypi-+tx+6Jg5US6Y+CCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77C804E5-1255-449F-9649-1BAB2536B383@gmail.com>

Hi coordinators,

It seems like the IGC statement basically welcomes the US Department of commerce March 14 statement, asking ICANN to convene global stakeholders in order to develop a transition proposal. If so, why don't the IGC statement tells it clearly using the same NTIA words? (see paraph 1, 2 & 4 in red!)

Second, it seems like the IGC wants to emphasize a couple of specific requests, or have a few reminder. So instead - at paraph 3-  of mentioning "THE MULTISTAKHOLDER MODEL" - which is something far from being defined - why don't you go for a more humble and true "A MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL"? Using the term "THE" seems to conclude to the existence of ONE SINGLE MODEL. Is that the case? DO we have one MODEL already set? Which one? Can we have a look at it?

Regarding the expression "THAT ENHANCED DEMOCRACY", (see paraph 3) again this idea of "ENHANCED DEMOCRACY" is something very odd. Either we wish to RESPECT DEMOCRACY, or we do speak about something we don't know. WHAT IS THE NEXT BEST STAGE OF DEMOCRACY according to the IGC? This is vague enough, and slippery enough to maybe just mention "RESPECT DEMOCRACY". If we look for respecting Democracy, already quite a task then, where would you put the emphasis? I would recommend the idea of legitimacy, clear separation of power and definition of roles, accountability. As I haven't this in this statement, I do really wonder, if we should not all start by simply respecting democratic values, before "ENHANCING ANYTHING" toward something we have no idea about.

Last comment: has this statement value for all the IGC participants as a collective endorsement? Yes, no? If Yes, how did this happen? If No, when and how do you plan to give it legitimacy. Without this I would recommend that the names of people supporting would come at the end of statement, as a sum of individual signature of IGC members, in agreement with themselves, instead of an IGC collective statement? Please detail how this is respectful of Democratic values, or "Enhanced democratic values", if that would already be the case. I might have miss something.

Thanks for your patience and good work

JC
> IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. 
>  
> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder community and has asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal for this purpose.
>  
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes the US Department of Commerce’s resolve to involve all stakeholders in the transition toward a multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance.
>  
> The IGC supports a multi-stakeholder policymaking and governance model as an all inclusive, bottom-up, legitimate, accountable, consensus driven model that respects democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the global public interest.
>  
> The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>  
>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to ICANN to guide IANA and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>  
> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.
>  
> For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org
>  
>  
> Ends



Le 21 mars 2014 à 08:40, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit :

> Dear Coordinators and the IGC:
> 
> Kindly find the revised cleaned version of the Statement.
> 
> IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. 
>  
> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder community.
>  
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA’s resolve to involve all stakeholders in the transition toward a stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what the NTIA has been referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)
>  
> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the global public interest.
>  
> The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>  
>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.
>  
> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.
>  
> For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org
>  
>  
> Ends
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.
> 
> On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would prefer my formulation below.
>> 
>> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>> 
>> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the global public interest.
>> 
>> The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem.  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> <IGC Statement Responding to NTIA Final Version 21.3.14.docx>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/b6c2f4d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Fri Mar 21 04:32:44 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:32:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net> <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net> <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>

What a lovely comment! Could you please stop throwing your hatred to the list readers, dear Mr. Ramasubramian.

Just behave.

JC

PS: Stormtroopers are famous in the Hollywood series "Star Wars". So why do feel entitled to link Guru's "..." to a nazi endorsement. I know that Vint Cerf loves to quote Star Wars all the time - himself quoting Jedi. So I would say this is rather fair game.

Le 21 mars 2014 à 09:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> Stormtroopers eh?   Interesting specialized unit of the Nazi party in WW 2 (the Sturm Abteilung) and before that, shock troops deployed in Imperial Germany around the time of WW 1 (stoßtruppen)
> 
> Are you calling the freedom of expression types at wcit nazis, Guru?  
> 
> As I recall I got suspended from the list for much the same sort of reference not so long back, and it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, and a remarkable benefit to the list, for you to be ejected as well.  I would request the co-cos to determine whether this is possible.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Mar-2014, at 13:34, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
>> The WCIT "Freedom of expression storm troopers" should note, "“More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians, Mr. Snowden said."
>> Guru
>> More revelations to come, says Snowden
>> 
>> March 20, 2014
>> 
>> The former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden emerged from his Russian exile Tuesday in the form of a remotely-controlled robot to promise more sensational revelations about U.S. spying programmes.
>> 
>> Mr. Snowden’s face appeared on a screen as he manoeuvred the wheeled android around a stage at the TED gathering, addressing an audience in Vancouver without ever leaving his secret hideaway.
>> 
>> “There are absolutely more revelations to come,” he said. “Some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come.”
>> 
>> Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who has been charged in the United States with espionage, dismissed the public debate about whether he is a heroic whistleblower or traitor. Instead, he used the conference organised by educational non-profit organisation TED (“Technology Entertainment Design”), to call for people         worldwide to fight for privacy and Internet freedom.
>> 
>> Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee briefly joined Mr. Snowden’s interview with TED curator Chris Anderson, and came down in the hero camp. When Mr. Anderson posed the question to the TED audience — known for famous, innovative, and influential attendees — the idea that Mr. Snowden was a force for good met with applause. “Hero patriot or traitor; I would say I am an American citizen just like anyone else,” Mr. Snowden said. “What really matters here is the kind of government we want; the kind of Internet we want.” He said he was inspired to pass a huge trove of NSA files to reporters when he saw U.S. spying tactics going too far and intruding into the private data of millions of Internet and telephone customers.
>> 
>> Mr. Snowden argued that if he had gone to the U.S. Congress with his concerns he would have risked being “buried along with the information.” He instead urged the “adversarial press” to challenge government and ignite public debate “without putting national security at risk.” He argued that the dangers critics have played up regarding disclosure of information have not materialised, and insisted that he remains comfortable with his decisions. He depicted the NSA’s Prism programme for getting user information from Internet firms as a way for the U.S. government to “deputise corporate America to do its dirty work.” And he blasted a U.S. secret court for seldom rejecting National Security Agency requests to compel Internet titans to turn over user data and U.S. legislators for showing little oversight.
>> 
>> Mr. Snowden urged Internet companies to stand up against online snooping by encrypting online activity by default so spies could easily note anything from book browsing at Amazon.com to visiting websites.
>> 
>> People should be able to book air travel, order books, make phone calls and send text messages without worrying about how it will look to an agent of the government, he declared.
>> 
>> “More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians,” Mr. Snowden said. He argued that the NSA was making the U.S., and the world, less safe by lobbying for weak standards that could open back doors into online venues or services such as online commerce or banking. “Our basic freedoms are not a partisan issue,” he said. “It is up to us to protect them; it is up to us to preserve the open Internet.” Mr. Snowden endorsed the campaign by Berners-Lee for a global Magna Carta laying out values and rights on the Internet. “A Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need,” Mr. Snowden said.
>> 
>> Mr. Anderson said that the NSA had been invited to take part in the TED chat with Mr. Snowden but it did not work out “for logistical reasons.” — AFP
>> 
>> SOURCE - http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/more-revelations-to-come-says-snowden/article5807667.ece
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/857cee74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: search.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/857cee74/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 04:38:51 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:38:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-_LNCeTexXNV70hi5d7eLG2kO4poGh=eob1SA1pSaVOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com> <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CACTo+v-_LNCeTexXNV70hi5d7eLG2kO4poGh=eob1SA1pSaVOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74781CA8-D2C9-497A-A0A8-6E60F7D472E5@theglobaljournal.net>

Agree with Mawaki. Such a statement's ambition is not to define a so-called MS model. I think it would be fair to restrain any overplay on this now.
Welcoming what the fact USG gives way to ICANN is what IGC tries to say, right now. So let's wait for the ICANN process to be seen before entering discussing a difficult topic such a Internet Governance in such a statement.

JC



Le 21 mars 2014 à 08:38, Mawaki Chango a écrit :

> My last word in this process and I let you guys wrap up with whatever you wish. Promised! (It just happens that as I was at the hotel yesterdays and still am this early before I hit the road, I'm reading your discussions and try to respond as I can. But I will be starting the actual fieldwork in a couple of hours and will no longer bother you.)
> 
> That sentence is obviously (at least it should be obvious to any attentive reader that it is) a theoretical construction, one that is based (at least in part) on hypotheticals in order to say, as Sala pointed out, what multi-stakeholder(ism) (M/S) is NOT.
> 
> Has M/S ever been inter-governmental? Not even a chance! Yet, we also say "We understand the M/S as distinct from the intergovernmental model" etc. I do understand the intergovernmental model exists, even if it anything but M/S. And you're saying On the other hand, beyond referring to and supporting M/S, the NTIA's announcement explicitly lists a number of I* organizations for ICANN to work with while it doesn't mention "civil society" not even once and anything "governmental" is only mentioned to be excluded. So yes, some may say there is a risk to have a governance model led or dominated by such technical standards bodies, etc. BTW, when IETF develops standards (and we understand one has to have some technical expertise and ideas win based on..., well, technical merit, but) is there ever a point where there is a debate about societal implications of those standards? If there ever was, are there other stakeholders involved than the same people who are conversant in technical standards development/specification and who actually developed the said standards? And isn't there a form of governance that comes with the standards thus developed?
> 
> Anyway, that's the context --although, again, we may admit that that case is just a hypothetical here and doesn't need to be necessarily more than that, as the sentence is theoretical (and a negative.)
> 
> Thanks, and I bow out --this time for sure.
> 
> Mawaki
> P.S. If you could, please read the version I posted yesterday and see if there's anything that may be useful to carry over in yours, as I wrote it trying to address all the questions raised in this cycle, with more context than anyone else having been the main drafter. I now leave it in your hands, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.
> 
> On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would prefer my formulation below.
>> 
>> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>> 
>> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the global public interest.
>> 
>> The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem.  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/54354371/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 21 06:03:07 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:33:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net> <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net> <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net> <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <B80CA896-8686-41CE-85FB-D5CC8BEC5C3D@hserus.net>

In case it escaped your attention, George Lucas explicitly made the empire in Star Wars an allegory for the Nazis, with multiple visual as well as character / place cues.   [for all that it was modeled on kurosawa's the hidden fortress].

The Star Wars weaponry was in fact all converted from condemned WW1 and WW2 weapons (mauser and luger pistols, mg42 machine guns, sten guns ..) which were being used as props at Elstree studios.  The attack on the Death Star was modeled on a movie about the WW 2 dambusters raid.  And then the medal scene is a straight nod to Leni Reifenstahl's Triumf de willens.  There is plenty of material available with a quick google search.

As for hatred, why - I will admit that I hate the poisonous agenda that keeps getting trotted out by some people on this list.  

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 14:02, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
> What a lovely comment! Could you please stop throwing your hatred to the list readers, dear Mr. Ramasubramian.
> 
> Just behave.
> 
> JC
> 
> PS: Stormtroopers are famous in the Hollywood series "Star Wars". So why do feel entitled to link Guru's "..." to a nazi endorsement. I know that Vint Cerf loves to quote Star Wars all the time - himself quoting Jedi. So I would say this is rather fair game.
> <search.jpg>
> 
>> Le 21 mars 2014 à 09:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>> 
>> Stormtroopers eh?   Interesting specialized unit of the Nazi party in WW 2 (the Sturm Abteilung) and before that, shock troops deployed in Imperial Germany around the time of WW 1 (stoßtruppen)
>> 
>> Are you calling the freedom of expression types at wcit nazis, Guru?  
>> 
>> As I recall I got suspended from the list for much the same sort of reference not so long back, and it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, and a remarkable benefit to the list, for you to be ejected as well.  I would request the co-cos to determine whether this is possible.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 21-Mar-2014, at 13:34, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The WCIT "Freedom of expression storm troopers" should note, "“More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians, Mr. Snowden said."
>>> Guru
>>> More revelations to come, says Snowden
>>> 
>>> March 20, 2014
>>> 
>>> The former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden emerged from his Russian exile Tuesday in the form of a remotely-controlled robot to promise more sensational revelations about U.S. spying programmes.
>>> 
>>> Mr. Snowden’s face appeared on a screen as he manoeuvred the wheeled android around a stage at the TED gathering, addressing an audience in Vancouver without ever leaving his secret hideaway.
>>> 
>>> “There are absolutely more revelations to come,” he said. “Some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come.”
>>> 
>>> Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who has been charged in the United States with espionage, dismissed the public debate about whether he is a heroic whistleblower or traitor. Instead, he used the conference organised by educational non-profit organisation TED (“Technology Entertainment Design”), to call for people worldwide to fight for privacy and Internet freedom.
>>> 
>>> Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee briefly joined Mr. Snowden’s interview with TED curator Chris Anderson, and came down in the hero camp. When Mr. Anderson posed the question to the TED audience — known for famous, innovative, and influential attendees — the idea that Mr. Snowden was a force for good met with applause. “Hero patriot or traitor; I would say I am an American citizen just like anyone else,” Mr. Snowden said. “What really matters here is the kind of government we want; the kind of Internet we want.” He said he was inspired to pass a huge trove of NSA files to reporters when he saw U.S. spying tactics going too far and intruding into the private data of millions of Internet and telephone customers.
>>> 
>>> Mr. Snowden argued that if he had gone to the U.S. Congress with his concerns he would have risked being “buried along with the information.” He instead urged the “adversarial press” to challenge government and ignite public debate “without putting national security at risk.” He argued that the dangers critics have played up regarding disclosure of information have not materialised, and insisted that he remains comfortable with his decisions. He depicted the NSA’s Prism programme for getting user information from Internet firms as a way for the U.S. government to “deputise corporate America to do its dirty work.” And he blasted a U.S. secret court for seldom rejecting National Security Agency requests to compel Internet titans to turn over user data and U.S. legislators for showing little oversight.
>>> 
>>> Mr. Snowden urged Internet companies to stand up against online snooping by encrypting online activity by default so spies could easily note anything from book browsing at Amazon.com to visiting websites.
>>> 
>>> People should be able to book air travel, order books, make phone calls and send text messages without worrying about how it will look to an agent of the government, he declared.
>>> 
>>> “More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians,” Mr. Snowden said. He argued that the NSA was making the U.S., and the world, less safe by lobbying for weak standards that could open back doors into online venues or services such as online commerce or banking. “Our basic freedoms are not a partisan issue,” he said. “It is up to us to protect them; it is up to us to preserve the open Internet.” Mr. Snowden endorsed the campaign by Berners-Lee for a global Magna Carta laying out values and rights on the Internet. “A Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need,” Mr. Snowden said.
>>> 
>>> Mr. Anderson said that the NSA had been invited to take part in the TED chat with Mr. Snowden but it did not work out “for logistical reasons.” — AFP
>>> 
>>> SOURCE - http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/more-revelations-to-come-says-snowden/article5807667.ece
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/4a098456/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Fri Mar 21 06:08:58 2014
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:08:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <B80CA896-8686-41CE-85FB-D5CC8BEC5C3D@hserus.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net>
 <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net>
 <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net>
 <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>
 <B80CA896-8686-41CE-85FB-D5CC8BEC5C3D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20140321100858.GE19660@thorion.it.jyu.fi>

On Mar 21 15:33, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote:

> Star Wars

> the medal scene is a straight nod to Leni Reifenstahl's Triumf de willens.

You misspelled both her name and the movie title:
it's Leni Riefenstahl and Triumph des Willens.

(sorry about irrelevant pedantry)

-- 
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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 06:19:22 2014
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:19:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <B80CA896-8686-41CE-85FB-D5CC8BEC5C3D@hserus.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net>
	<532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net>
	<E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net>
	<BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>
	<B80CA896-8686-41CE-85FB-D5CC8BEC5C3D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAM29qGaU-LCO6cpGuP+TVp=S94RcxtmSMjsOR9fY0YzyWurTbA@mail.gmail.com>

Jean Claude

Being derogatory to others is Suresh's stock in trade. I was his
target som 7 years ago.
He glows in doing that and it appears to be earning a lot to him

Let him eat his humble pie

Aaron

On 3/21/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> In case it escaped your attention, George Lucas explicitly made the empire
> in Star Wars an allegory for the Nazis, with multiple visual as well as
> character / place cues.   [for all that it was modeled on kurosawa's the
> hidden fortress].
>
> The Star Wars weaponry was in fact all converted from condemned WW1 and WW2
> weapons (mauser and luger pistols, mg42 machine guns, sten guns ..) which
> were being used as props at Elstree studios.  The attack on the Death Star
> was modeled on a movie about the WW 2 dambusters raid.  And then the medal
> scene is a straight nod to Leni Reifenstahl's Triumf de willens.  There is
> plenty of material available with a quick google search.
>
> As for hatred, why - I will admit that I hate the poisonous agenda that
> keeps getting trotted out by some people on this list.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>> On 21-Mar-2014, at 14:02, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
>> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>> What a lovely comment! Could you please stop throwing your hatred to the
>> list readers, dear Mr. Ramasubramian.
>>
>> Just behave.
>>
>> JC
>>
>> PS: Stormtroopers are famous in the Hollywood series "Star Wars". So why
>> do feel entitled to link Guru's "..." to a nazi endorsement. I know that
>> Vint Cerf loves to quote Star Wars all the time - himself quoting Jedi. So
>> I would say this is rather fair game.
>> <search.jpg>
>>
>>> Le 21 mars 2014 à 09:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>>>
>>> Stormtroopers eh?   Interesting specialized unit of the Nazi party in WW
>>> 2 (the Sturm Abteilung) and before that, shock troops deployed in
>>> Imperial Germany around the time of WW 1 (stoßtruppen)
>>>
>>> Are you calling the freedom of expression types at wcit nazis, Guru?
>>>
>>> As I recall I got suspended from the list for much the same sort of
>>> reference not so long back, and it would be a consummation devoutly to be
>>> wished, and a remarkable benefit to the list, for you to be ejected as
>>> well.  I would request the co-cos to determine whether this is possible.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>>> On 21-Mar-2014, at 13:34, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The WCIT "Freedom of expression storm troopers" should note, "“More
>>>> communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than
>>>> there are in Russia about Russians, Mr. Snowden said."
>>>> Guru
>>>> More revelations to come, says Snowden
>>>>
>>>> March 20, 2014
>>>>
>>>> The former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden emerged from his
>>>> Russian exile Tuesday in the form of a remotely-controlled robot to
>>>> promise more sensational revelations about U.S. spying programmes.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Snowden’s face appeared on a screen as he manoeuvred the wheeled
>>>> android around a stage at the TED gathering, addressing an audience in
>>>> Vancouver without ever leaving his secret hideaway.
>>>>
>>>> “There are absolutely more revelations to come,” he said. “Some of the
>>>> most important reporting to be done is yet to come.”
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who has been
>>>> charged in the United States with espionage, dismissed the public debate
>>>> about whether he is a heroic whistleblower or traitor. Instead, he used
>>>> the conference organised by educational non-profit organisation TED
>>>> (“Technology Entertainment Design”), to call for people worldwide to
>>>> fight for privacy and Internet freedom.
>>>>
>>>> Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee briefly joined Mr. Snowden’s interview
>>>> with TED curator Chris Anderson, and came down in the hero camp. When
>>>> Mr. Anderson posed the question to the TED audience — known for famous,
>>>> innovative, and influential attendees — the idea that Mr. Snowden was a
>>>> force for good met with applause. “Hero patriot or traitor; I would say
>>>> I am an American citizen just like anyone else,” Mr. Snowden said. “What
>>>> really matters here is the kind of government we want; the kind of
>>>> Internet we want.” He said he was inspired to pass a huge trove of NSA
>>>> files to reporters when he saw U.S. spying tactics going too far and
>>>> intruding into the private data of millions of Internet and telephone
>>>> customers.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Snowden argued that if he had gone to the U.S. Congress with his
>>>> concerns he would have risked being “buried along with the information.”
>>>> He instead urged the “adversarial press” to challenge government and
>>>> ignite public debate “without putting national security at risk.” He
>>>> argued that the dangers critics have played up regarding disclosure of
>>>> information have not materialised, and insisted that he remains
>>>> comfortable with his decisions. He depicted the NSA’s Prism programme
>>>> for getting user information from Internet firms as a way for the U.S.
>>>> government to “deputise corporate America to do its dirty work.” And he
>>>> blasted a U.S. secret court for seldom rejecting National Security
>>>> Agency requests to compel Internet titans to turn over user data and
>>>> U.S. legislators for showing little oversight.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Snowden urged Internet companies to stand up against online snooping
>>>> by encrypting online activity by default so spies could easily note
>>>> anything from book browsing at Amazon.com to visiting websites.
>>>>
>>>> People should be able to book air travel, order books, make phone calls
>>>> and send text messages without worrying about how it will look to an
>>>> agent of the government, he declared.
>>>>
>>>> “More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans
>>>> than there are in Russia about Russians,” Mr. Snowden said. He argued
>>>> that the NSA was making the U.S., and the world, less safe by lobbying
>>>> for weak standards that could open back doors into online venues or
>>>> services such as online commerce or banking. “Our basic freedoms are not
>>>> a partisan issue,” he said. “It is up to us to protect them; it is up to
>>>> us to preserve the open Internet.” Mr. Snowden endorsed the campaign by
>>>> Berners-Lee for a global Magna Carta laying out values and rights on the
>>>> Internet. “A Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need,” Mr.
>>>> Snowden said.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Anderson said that the NSA had been invited to take part in the TED
>>>> chat with Mr. Snowden but it did not work out “for logistical reasons.”
>>>> — AFP
>>>>
>>>> SOURCE -
>>>> http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/more-revelations-to-come-says-snowden/article5807667.ece
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien NYANGKWE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Telephone +237 73 42 71 27

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 21 06:20:06 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:50:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <20140321100858.GE19660@thorion.it.jyu.fi>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net> <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net> <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net> <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net> <B80CA896-8686-41CE-85FB-D5CC8BEC5C3D@hserus.net> <20140321100858.GE19660@thorion.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <2F59C44E-C292-4108-8FD2-7C59336407FE@hserus.net>

I must blame the ipad keyboard for that.  Apologies.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 15:38, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 21 15:33, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote:
>> 
>> Star Wars
> 
>> the medal scene is a straight nod to Leni Reifenstahl's Triumf de willens.
> 
> You misspelled both her name and the movie title:
> it's Leni Riefenstahl and Triumph des Willens.
> 
> (sorry about irrelevant pedantry)
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Fri Mar 21 06:37:16 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:07:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <57725fde13d044fc89fd30239786e884@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au> <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net> <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>,<532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net> <57725fde13d044fc89fd30239786e884@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <532C165C.6040106@ITforChange.net>

Dear Lee,

The issue of a secret / proprietary search algorithm that may have 
commercial and political implications contra to public interest, is 
clearly out of the remit of 'technical management of day to day issues', 
which a body like ICANN needs to concern itself with. I never mentioned 
ICANN at all in my mails for that reason. Issues such as this (or 
illegal sharing of private information by Vodafone with the spy agency 
of the UK Government, or that of evasion of tax by Internet businesses) 
would come under the remit of the 'global public policy' making which is 
beyond the remit of ICANN.

What I was seeking was a process of global norms building, and if found 
necessary, setting up of global  policy frameworks, recognising the 
extraordinary public interest nature of the search service, (search 
being the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all 
of us). There are parallels that we can take note of; for instance, in 
the case of medicines - the composition of medicines may be sought to be 
protected by pharmaceutical companies as their trade secret, but this is 
not allowed, it is mandatory to provide the complete details of the 
composition on the packaging itself; while on the other hand, such a 
standard may not apply to Coke (as that is not considered to be of such 
high public interest).

Existing UN bodies do take responsibility for developing global norms,  
policy frameworks## / standards of various kinds, WHO for drugs, UNESCO 
for  education and  cultural goods. Often norms building can go into 
treaty making processes, such as UNESCO's treaty on cultural goods, 
whereby cultural goods are considered of special public interest and 
need not fall into normal world trade regulatory frameworks. As per this 
treaty, for instance, countries can have quotas on the number of 
Hollywood films that are allowed to be imported in  a year. Similar 
global norms building, and treaties are required to ensure that the 
current situation where large US based IT trans-nationals are 
compromising public interest for their commercial gains (and political 
aims of the USG) does not persist. (The extra-ordinary hypocrisy in 
their coming  together at WCIT to thwart the possibilities of 
democratisation of the Internet is what I alluded to in my recent post).

The Tunis Agenda envisaged that some of these complex issues would be 
dealt with under the 'enhanced co-operation' processes, which 
unfortunately has been stone-walled by those who have vested interests 
in the status quo.  'Multi-Stakeholderism' has spectacularly failed to 
make even the smallest progress in promoting such public interest, since 
it allows the powerful to stalemate any move in that direction. Many of 
us know how just having a workshop at the IGF on enhanced cooperation 
was so difficult.

The current situation, as I pointed out is untenable, it privileges a 
powerful (and criminal as per Snowden) minority. Global civil society IG 
space like the IGC must work for the development of norms that promote 
the public interest and counter this power.

As a starting point, I would like to call for an agreement on the list, 
that the current situation of the search algorithm being a secret is 
untenable. The practical issues raised by Adam, David and others can 
then be explored for solutions, but can we agree first on the 
proposition that Google search algorithm needs an audit to ensure it is 
not commercially and politically harmful (as explained many times by me).

regards,
Guru
## You have worked on 'framework convention for the Internet' in the 
past as well...recognising the complexity of public policy issues 
relating to the Internet, far beyond what an ICANN can or ought to do.

On 03/17/2014 10:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Hey Guru,
 >
 > As I have previously stated, competition policy is a purview of
 > states, and at global level, organizations like the WTO; and draft
 > treaties like the TPP, like it or not.
 >
 > ICANN can set its own - subsidiary - policies in that arena but it
 > is far more likely the Chinese, Indian, French, EU, and US relevant
 > government agencies will have oversight of Google search effects on
 > market competition - and what a coincidence, all of them have a
 > variety of competition policy inquiries into Google search and other
 > practices going on right now.
 >
 > Of course Best Bits and IGC are free to weigh in on the specifics in
 > each of those cases, and make recommendations for new global public
 > policies, for the global Internet economy also in the competition
 > policy arena broadly speaking.
 >
 > But, I am more than a little unclear, OK I am seriously confused, if
 > you now are suggesting ICANN should weigh in and be a place that can
 > set that level of competition policy. In a hypothetical future
 > out-of-California state?
 >
 > I suggest we are confounding levels of political, and regulatory
 > authority, if we are suggesting that ICANN should substitute, or
 > even have a place at the table, with competition policy matters
 > before the WTO, OECD, TPP, and Indian, Chinese, French, EU, and US
 > governments - to just list the competition policy/regulatory arenas I
 > am aware of where Google practices are in question, there might be
 > more.
 >
 > To end on a positive/speculative note, if you are suggesting a new
 > UDRP-like arrangement whereby ICANN provides/channels
 > multi-stakeholder input into say WTO/EU?/national competition policy
 > inquiries...well, that would be - different : )
 >
 > Lee
 >
 > ________________________________________ From:
 > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
 > <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Guru गुरु
 > <Guru at ITforChange.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:29 AM To:
 > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject:
 > Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
 >
 > On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
 >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
 >>
 >>> David,
 >>>
 >>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
 >>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
 >>>> wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>>> Dear all,
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private
 >>>>> sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will
 >>>>> get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key
 >>>>> factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all
 >>>>> of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial
 >>>>> secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
 >>>>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental
 >>>>> knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that
 >>>>> others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
 >>>> Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil
 >>>> society, or government for that matter, might oppose it
 >>>> becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would
 >>>> almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results
 >>>> ranked according to the most industrious search engine
 >>>> optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a
 >>>> reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.
 >>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did
 >>> give a response ...
 >> Hi Guru,
 >>
 >> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made,
 >> so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high
 >> probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took
 >> this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when
 >> stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public
 >> knowledge.
 > Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable
 > issues/challenges.  the challenge of gaming is obvious and I have no
 >  doubt it needs to be and can be  addressed.
 >
 > By the same logic, free and open source software should have the
 > maximum viruses since it the source code is freely available.
 > Paradoxically, while Windows is plagued with viruses, GNU/Linux is
 > not. One of the reasons given is that, the open source allows many
 > people to study and identify issues and help resolve it... whereas
 > this is not possible with proprietary software.
 >
 > Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has dangerous
 >  public interest implications - we really dont know what is hidden
 > in the code used by millions of users and how it may have malignant
 > code that can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know how many
 > US IT companies are hand in glove with the USG) political interest
 > of its masters.? If yes,  then you need to think of a public
 > interest based response to this ...  the ball is in your court as
 > well..
 >
 > Guru
 >
 >> Best,
 >>
 >> Adam
 >>
 >>
 >>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/c72bf222/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gideonrop at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 06:42:29 2014
From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:42:29 +0300
Subject: [governance] DotConnectAfrica Statement regarding NTIA announcement
 on Intent to Transition
Message-ID: <CAP2ohHFz1oreKainVSWP3L6y8v8Sh6-QV3MNinfvz4A-rJNbtA@mail.gmail.com>

DotConnectAfrica Statement on NTIA announcement to Transition Key Internet
Domain Name Function.


Link:
http://www.prlog.org/12297618-dotconnectafrica-statement-on-ntia-announcement-to-transition-key-internet-domain-name-function.pdf


Regards

Gideon Rop

DotConnectAfrica
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/ae614391/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Mar 21 07:42:38 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:42:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>
Message-ID: <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www at wwinf1n33>, at 
23:38:21 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> 
writes
>In other words
>
>.edu is a "common good" ... for the US

Perhaps now is the time for it [.edu] to be thrown open for global 
multistakeholder governance[1], alongside IANA.

nb. I am not suggesting the same be necessarily done right away for .mil 
and .gov, because these appear to have a much more defacto legacy as 
"The US military" and "The US Government".

Although eventually both of those might perhaps be moved to .mil.us and 
.gov.us in order to conform with the rest-of-the-globe standard for such 
things.

Then we could have urls like yourministry.yourcountry.gov, rather than 
them being Balkanised across the ccTLDs.

[1] That governance could decide to keep the status quo of
    "US EDUcation", but it should at least be debated.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 07:46:32 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:46:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-_LNCeTexXNV70hi5d7eLG2kO4poGh=eob1SA1pSaVOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CACTo+v-_LNCeTexXNV70hi5d7eLG2kO4poGh=eob1SA1pSaVOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgYYYvKWqHWdUT52GtLGUUYjhEvojwJrMWgsrtK_5tK0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> My last word in this process and I let you guys wrap up with whatever you
> wish. Promised! (It just happens that as I was at the hotel yesterdays and
> still am this early before I hit the road, I'm reading your discussions and
> try to respond as I can. But I will be starting the actual fieldwork in a
> couple of hours and will no longer bother you.)
>
> That sentence is obviously (at least it should be obvious to any attentive
> reader that it is) a theoretical construction, one that is based (at least
> in part) on hypotheticals in order to say, as Sala pointed out, what
> multi-stakeholder(ism) (M/S) is NOT.
>
> Has M/S ever been inter-governmental?
>

YES!



>  Not even a chance!
>

I consider all that happens in Geneva in re: IG an "inter-governmental" MS
model, in that the UN/ITU folks pay lip service to MSism, but the processes
are not truly open, transparent, consensus based, etc.



> Yet, we also say "We understand the M/S as distinct from the
> intergovernmental model" etc. I do understand the intergovernmental model
> exists, even if it anything but M/S. And you're saying On the other hand,
> beyond referring to and supporting M/S, the NTIA's announcement explicitly
> lists a number of I* organizations for ICANN to work with while it doesn't
> mention "civil society" not even once
>


In my view, true MSism has zero silos.  Everyone comes together without
labels to work together, so why mention silos if there shouldn't be any.
 That is more the Geneva style of MSism.




> and anything "governmental" is only mentioned to be excluded. So yes, some
> may say there is a risk to have a governance model led or dominated by such
> technical standards bodies, etc. BTW, when IETF develops standards (and we
> understand one has to have some technical expertise and ideas win based
> on..., well, technical merit, but) is there ever a point where there is a
> debate about societal implications of those standards?
>


yes



> If there ever was, are there other stakeholders involved than the same
> people who are conversant in technical standards development/specification
> and who actually developed the said standards?
>


yes, but not involved as in formal representation of Geneva style silos.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/001fffc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 07:56:35 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:56:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] More revelations to come, says Snowden
In-Reply-To: <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <532BE4AD.7010006@itforchange.net> <532BF273.2080403@ITforChange.net>
 <E7773A40-5300-42E9-B30D-8EE22F56D7E5@hserus.net> <BE6176AE-4059-4257-8ACC-AE3B749BF7D3@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhBd6Ea7xoa3aFdeFZ1Q0socCVe0=U0+b4w1Z-=nbHf5A@mail.gmail.com>

The 'hatred" comes from those who wish to discredit those parts of CS who
chose to focus on "Internet Freedom", many of those folks are on this list
and are valued parts of CS.

It was an unfortunate (to say the least) insult that Guru used and it would
be useful if he were to apologize.




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> What a lovely comment! Could you please stop throwing your hatred to the
> list readers, dear Mr. Ramasubramian.
>
> Just behave.
>
> JC
>
> PS: Stormtroopers are famous in the Hollywood series "Star Wars". So why
> do feel entitled to link Guru's "..." to a nazi endorsement. I know that
> Vint Cerf loves to quote Star Wars all the time - himself quoting Jedi. So
> I would say this is rather fair game.
> [image: search.jpg]
>
> Le 21 mars 2014 à 09:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
> Stormtroopers eh?   Interesting specialized unit of the Nazi party in WW 2
> (the Sturm Abteilung) and before that, shock troops deployed in Imperial
> Germany around the time of WW 1 (stoßtruppen)
>
> Are you calling the freedom of expression types at wcit nazis, Guru?
>
> As I recall I got suspended from the list for much the same sort of
> reference not so long back, and it would be a consummation devoutly to be
> wished, and a remarkable benefit to the list, for you to be ejected as
> well.  I would request the co-cos to determine whether this is possible.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Mar-2014, at 13:34, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>
> The WCIT "Freedom of expression storm troopers" should note, "“More
> communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there
> are in Russia about Russians, Mr. Snowden said."
>
> Guru
>  More revelations to come, says Snowden March 20, 2014
>
> The former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden emerged from his Russian
> exile Tuesday in the form of a remotely-controlled robot to promise more
> sensational revelations about U.S. spying programmes.
>
> Mr. Snowden’s face appeared on a screen as he manoeuvred the wheeled
> android around a stage at the TED gathering, addressing an audience in
> Vancouver without ever leaving his secret hideaway.
>
> “There are absolutely more revelations to come,” he said. “Some of the
> most important reporting to be done is yet to come.”
>
> Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who has been
> charged in the United States with espionage, dismissed the public debate
> about whether he is a heroic whistleblower or traitor. Instead, he used the
> conference organised by educational non-profit organisation TED
> (“Technology Entertainment Design”), to call for people worldwide to fight
> for privacy and Internet freedom.
>
> Internet creator Tim Berners-Lee briefly joined Mr. Snowden’s interview
> with TED curator Chris Anderson, and came down in the hero camp. When Mr.
> Anderson posed the question to the TED audience — known for famous,
> innovative, and influential attendees — the idea that Mr. Snowden was a
> force for good met with applause. “Hero patriot or traitor; I would say I
> am an American citizen just like anyone else,” Mr. Snowden said. “What
> really matters here is the kind of government we want; the kind of Internet
> we want.” He said he was inspired to pass a huge trove of NSA files to
> reporters when he saw U.S. spying tactics going too far and intruding into
> the private data of millions of Internet and telephone customers.
>
> Mr. Snowden argued that if he had gone to the U.S. Congress with his
> concerns he would have risked being “buried along with the information.” He
> instead urged the “adversarial press” to challenge government and ignite
> public debate “without putting national security at risk.” He argued that
> the dangers critics have played up regarding disclosure of information have
> not materialised, and insisted that he remains comfortable with his
> decisions. He depicted the NSA’s Prism programme for getting user
> information from Internet firms as a way for the U.S. government to
> “deputise corporate America to do its dirty work.” And he blasted a U.S.
> secret court for seldom rejecting National Security Agency requests to
> compel Internet titans to turn over user data and U.S. legislators for
> showing little oversight.
>
> Mr. Snowden urged Internet companies to stand up against online snooping
> by encrypting online activity by default so spies could easily note
> anything from book browsing at Amazon.com to visiting websites.
>
> People should be able to book air travel, order books, make phone calls
> and send text messages without worrying about how it will look to an agent
> of the government, he declared.
>
> “More communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than
> there are in Russia about Russians,” Mr. Snowden said. He argued that the
> NSA was making the U.S., and the world, less safe by lobbying for weak
> standards that could open back doors into online venues or services such as
> online commerce or banking. “Our basic freedoms are not a partisan issue,”
> he said. “It is up to us to protect them; it is up to us to preserve the
> open Internet.” Mr. Snowden endorsed the campaign by Berners-Lee for a
> global Magna Carta laying out values and rights on the Internet. “A Magna
> Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need,” Mr. Snowden said.
>
> Mr. Anderson said that the NSA had been invited to take part in the TED
> chat with Mr. Snowden but it did not work out “for logistical reasons.” —
> AFP
> SOURCE -
> http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/more-revelations-to-come-says-snowden/article5807667.ece
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/fbe98695/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: search.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/fbe98695/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 08:43:37 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:13:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com> <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33> <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68@hserus.net>

Funnily enough it isn't unknown for foreign educational institutions to get themselves a .edu .. for example pes.edu is a small university in Bangalore.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 17:12, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> 
> In message <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www at wwinf1n33>, at 23:38:21 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> writes
>> In other words
>> 
>> .edu is a "common good" ... for the US
> 
> Perhaps now is the time for it [.edu] to be thrown open for global multistakeholder governance[1], alongside IANA.
> 
> nb. I am not suggesting the same be necessarily done right away for .mil and .gov, because these appear to have a much more defacto legacy as "The US military" and "The US Government".
> 
> Although eventually both of those might perhaps be moved to .mil.us and .gov.us in order to conform with the rest-of-the-globe standard for such things.
> 
> Then we could have urls like yourministry.yourcountry.gov, rather than them being Balkanised across the ccTLDs.
> 
> [1] That governance could decide to keep the status quo of
>   "US EDUcation", but it should at least be debated.
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 09:11:46 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:11:46 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68@hserus.net>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>
 <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <xp0lIUOSqDLTFArb@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68 at hserus.net>, at 
18:13:37 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>Funnily enough it isn't unknown for foreign educational institutions to 
>get themselves a .edu .. for example pes.edu is a small university in 
>Bangalore.

What's your impression on how they managed to get that through the 
approval process. Does it predate the current rule, have some US 
affiliation, or something else?

>
>> On 21-Mar-2014, at 17:12, Roland Perry 
>><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>> In message <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www at wwinf1n33>, 
>>at 23:38:21 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Jean-Louis FULLSACK 
>><jlfullsack at orange.fr> writes
>>> In other words
>>>
>>> .edu is a "common good" ... for the US
>>
>> Perhaps now is the time for it [.edu] to be thrown open for global 
>>multistakeholder governance[1], alongside IANA.
>>
>> nb. I am not suggesting the same be necessarily done right away for 
>>.mil and .gov, because these appear to have a much more defacto legacy 
>>as "The US military" and "The US Government".
>>
>> Although eventually both of those might perhaps be moved to .mil.us 
>>and .gov.us in order to conform with the rest-of-the-globe standard 
>>for such things.
>>
>> Then we could have urls like yourministry.yourcountry.gov, rather 
>>than them being Balkanised across the ccTLDs.
>>
>> [1] That governance could decide to keep the status quo of
>>   "US EDUcation", but it should at least be debated.
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
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 suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 21 09:36:26 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:06:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <xp0lIUOSqDLTFArb@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com> <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33> <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com> <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68@hserus.net> <xp0lIUOSqDLTFArb@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <E4FD72FF-5D67-4200-BC2A-09784599A699@hserus.net>

Their domain was registered on August 12, 1997 - so I am not sure if that predates the existing rule, or whether they have some sort of offsite US campus that let them apply for a .edu domain.

Other indian educational institutions use .ac.in

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 18:41, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> 
> In message <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68 at hserus.net>, at 18:13:37 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> writes
>> Funnily enough it isn't unknown for foreign educational institutions to get themselves a .edu .. for example pes.edu is a small university in Bangalore.
> 
> What's your impression on how they managed to get that through the approval process. Does it predate the current rule, have some US affiliation, or something else?
>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 10:07:38 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:07:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <E4FD72FF-5D67-4200-BC2A-09784599A699@hserus.net>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33>
 <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68@hserus.net>
 <xp0lIUOSqDLTFArb@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E4FD72FF-5D67-4200-BC2A-09784599A699@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <+pKmo7RqeELTFAbK@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <E4FD72FF-5D67-4200-BC2A-09784599A699 at hserus.net>, at 
19:06:26 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>Their domain was registered on August 12, 1997 - so I am not sure if 
>that predates the existing rule,

The current registry dates from 2001, but finding out when the current 
rule dates from would be a bit more complicated I think.

>or whether they have some sort of offsite US campus that let them apply 
>for a .edu domain.
>
>Other indian educational institutions use .ac.in
>
>--srs (iPad)
>
>> On 21-Mar-2014, at 18:41, Roland Perry 
>><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>> In message <86FFEF2F-E478-477E-82B9-64292FA4FA68 at hserus.net>, at 
>>18:13:37 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
>><suresh at hserus.net> writes
>>> Funnily enough it isn't unknown for foreign educational institutions 
>>>to get themselves a .edu .. for example pes.edu is a small university 
>>>in Bangalore.
>>
>> What's your impression on how they managed to get that through the 
>>approval process. Does it predate the current rule, have some US 
>>affiliation, or something else?
>>>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
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 daniel at digsys.bg  Fri Mar 21 10:22:47 2014
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:22:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <K2GbvAOdUsKTFAUI@internetpolicyagency.com> <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n33> <zrbF4vBuWCLTFA6r@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <726E69E6-5F23-4A27-858C-C1B16C2E3813@digsys.bg>


On 21.03.2014, at 12:42, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <1746728927.24766.1395355101321.JavaMail.www at wwinf1n33>, at 23:38:21 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> writes
>> In other words
>> 
>> .edu is a "common good" ... for the US
> 
> Perhaps now is the time for it [.edu] to be thrown open for global multistakeholder governance[1], alongside IANA.
> 
> nb. I am not suggesting the same be necessarily done right away for .mil and .gov, because these appear to have a much more defacto legacy as "The US military" and "The US Government".
> 
> Although eventually both of those might perhaps be moved to .mil.us and .gov.us in order to conform with the rest-of-the-globe standard for such things.
> 
> Then we could have urls like yourministry.yourcountry.gov, rather than them being Balkanised across the ccTLDs.
> 

Living on the Balkans (and in a country which more or less is given as example of such.. behavior), I can only say this is an good idea. But it will not work, because any government will prefer a domain name in a (cc)TLD they (at least believe) control.

Duplicating the root hierarchy under each TLD is actually an extremely bad idea. Not only because it usually does not make much sense (non-English speakers find very little sense in these US-inspired abbreviations), but also there *are* technical problems with resolving names that contain tld.tld in there. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away and the only real solutions, a) to forbid local part searching (fixing most of the Internet software ever written) or b) to teach each and every Internet user to put a dot at the end of the domain name (forcing billions of people to accept they have been doing it wrong all the time) … are not going to happen.

So please, for the sake of no Balkanizing the Internet, do not advocate tld.tld anymore. Thanks. :)

Otherwise, I do support the idea to have .edu open to education institutions worldwide. 

Daniel


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 21 10:41:56 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:41:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To:  <CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>,<CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W37347D12E382DF8F10DF35B4790@phx.gbl>

+1 @McTim.

From: dogwallah at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:19:29 -0400
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced intent to relinquish role in IANA functions

I would prefer my formulation below.
It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
I have used html formatting, apologies for that.




On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:


Dear All,


 








 The
IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its inclusiveness
of all people from around the world who might be affected by its policy
decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement
globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the global public
interest.
The
multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem.  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder
model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and
views of Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the
world.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/2ac5f2de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Fri Mar 21 10:50:22 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:50:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Paper: IEEE 2014 Fourth International
 Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE2014)
Message-ID: <019c01cf4514$e30ebc90$a92c35b0$@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, British Telecommunications, UK

- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/f49cc866/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Fri Mar 21 12:28:22 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:28:22 -0800
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>

Kwasi, you  can also go for university.ac.countryname depending on the
location of your country like ac.uk for www.oxford.ac.uk (United Kingdom),
 or.ac.ke like uonbi.ac.ke *(*Kenya)

One question Internet Evangelists have been asking and Roland has raised it
is why US reserved .edu and .mil exclusively for themselves. The opening up
of the root to allow new GTLDs should answer that question. We now have the
chance to localise our TLD experiences. For example, in large parts of East
Africa, we speak Swahili which is the official lingua franca. It is
therefore logical that for our universities, we should register a TLD
.chuo. Chuo is the Swahili name for University. Why would we want .edu
while we can register .chuo?

So instead of .mil, our region would go for .jeshi (Swahili for Army)


Regards
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh



On 20 March 2014 16:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Kwasi,
>
> As you would have seen from the flurry of emails following your post, .edu
> is reserved for American accredited educational institutions. All other
> countries, usually have something like:-
>
> InsertName.edu.au or InsertName.edu.ccTLD
>
> For end users, the shorter the domain the easier it is to remember, hence
> preference for .edu
> However, there are also merits in having a .edu.ccTLD or .edu.africa for
> instance as it helps users distinguish location.
>
> Just as .gov is reserved for the US and its territories whilst other
> countries have .gov.fj or .gov.ccTLD. Noting that some countries use
> .gouv.ccTLD
>
> Some of these things developed because of precedent and as a consequence
> of innovation in the TLD space starting in the US etc.
>
> Best Regards,
> Sala
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Kwasi,
>>
>> Here you go: https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/
>>
>> Katim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong <
>> kboakye at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it
>>> appears that .edu extensions are not available.
>>>
>>> Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a .edu extension
>>> registered?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kwasi
>>>
>>> --
>>> *We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing.
>>> Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. *--
>>> *Frank Tibolt*
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/0431b56b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 12:30:53 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:30:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <532C165C.6040106@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
 <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net> <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>
 <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net> <57725fde13d044fc89fd30239786e884@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
 <532C165C.6040106@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhezzWNEiqX7Hzky4T_xGbn0tETHPa5_SNPjBVd_imkkg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Dear Lee,
>
> The issue of a secret / proprietary search algorithm that may have
> commercial and political implications contra to public interest, is clearly
> out of the remit of 'technical management of day to day issues', which a
> body like ICANN needs to concern itself with. I never mentioned ICANN at
> all in my mails for that reason. Issues such as this (or illegal sharing of
> private information by Vodafone with the spy agency of the UK Government,
> or that of evasion of tax by Internet businesses) would come under the
> remit of the 'global public policy' making which is beyond the remit of
> ICANN.
>


Not to conflate issues, but ICANN does have remit re: searchable WHOS.  Of
course, they don't oversee search in general, but that doesn't mean that it
needs an "overseer" beyond what Lee pointed out from competition
authorities.

I would suggest that ALL search engines have "commercial and political
implications" that may align with "the public interest" or may align with
private interests.




>
> What I was seeking was a process of global norms building
>



We have global norms, e.g., anyone can set up their own search facility.



> , and if found necessary, setting up of global  policy frameworks,
> recognising the extraordinary public interest nature of the search service,
> (search being the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge
> for all of us).
>

So ALL search engines would be regulated under such a policy framework?




>  There are parallels that we can take note of; for instance, in the case
> of medicines - the composition of medicines may be sought to be protected
> by pharmaceutical companies as their trade secret, but this is not allowed,
> it is mandatory to provide the complete details of the composition on the
> packaging itself; while on the other hand, such a standard may not apply to
> Coke (as that is not considered to be of such high public interest).
>
>
For consumer safety BOTH Coke and drug makers have to list ingredients,
neither has to tell the steps in the processes of manufacturing AFAIK.

In any case, search isn't something we ingest, like drugs or coke.




> Existing UN bodies do take responsibility for developing global norms,
> policy frameworks## / standards of various kinds, WHO for drugs, UNESCO
> for  education and  cultural goods. Often norms building can go into treaty
> making processes, such as UNESCO's treaty on cultural goods, whereby
> cultural goods are considered of special public interest and need not fall
> into normal world trade regulatory frameworks. As per this treaty, for
> instance, countries can have quotas on the number of Hollywood films that
> are allowed to be imported in  a year. Similar global norms building, and
> treaties are required
>


desired by a very few, not required.


>  to ensure that the current situation where large US based IT
> trans-nationals are compromising public interest for their commercial gains
> (and political aims of the USG) does not persist. (The extra-ordinary
> hypocrisy in their coming  together at WCIT to thwart the possibilities of
> democratisation of the Internet is what I alluded to in my recent post).
>
>
The above assumes that democratisation of the Internet was what was
attempted at WCIT, this is asserting a fact not in evidence.





> The Tunis Agenda envisaged that some of these complex issues would be
> dealt with under the 'enhanced co-operation' processes, which unfortunately
> has been stone-walled by those who have vested interests in the status
> quo.  'Multi-Stakeholderism' has spectacularly failed to make even the
> smallest progress in promoting such public interest
>


Your vision of enhanced cooperation is different than mine....is not what
is going on in Sao Paolo "enhanced cooperation" as well?

MSism has given us the Internet that we have today.  I think that is a
SPECTACULAR success in promoting public interests.




> , since it allows the powerful to stalemate any move in that direction.
> Many of us know how just having a workshop at the IGF on enhanced
> cooperation was so difficult.
>
> The current situation, as I pointed out is untenable, it privileges a
> powerful (and criminal as per Snowden) minority. Global civil society IG
> space like the IGC must work for the development of norms that promote the
> public interest and counter this power.
>
> As a starting point, I would like to call for an agreement on the list
>


I think you have already had your answer in the negative.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/9deab5a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kstubbs at afilias.info  Fri Mar 21 13:26:52 2014
From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:26:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>

I believe Roland & others are mistaken here.

To the best of my knowledge this string was not reserved by the US for 
exclusive use by themselves but
is overseen by Educause   (see www.educause.edu). a group of over 1,800 
colleges and universities collaborating
on common higher education IT challenges—sharing the mission of 
transforming higher education through the use of information technology.

Here is a clip from their website

EDUCAUSE actively engages with U.S. and international colleges and 
universities, corporations, foundations, government, and other nonprofit 
associations to further the mission of transforming higher education 
through the use of information technology. While we are an association 
predominantly based in the United States, we recognize that "uncommon 
thinking for the common good" can emerge anywhere in the world. Our 
strategic direction is to serve as a leader for the profession, 
convening the community on significant technology issues facing member 
institutions and higher education overall.

EDUCAUSE is proud to count over 260 non-U.S. institutions and 30 
associations and corporations based outside the United States among its 
members. We are equally proud that their participation extends to the 
leadership of the EDUCAUSE community, including representation on the 
EDUCAUSE Board of Directors.

Mike roberts can probably give you some history on .EDU. as he was involved
for sometime with the organization

Ken Stubbs



On 3/21/2014 12:28 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
> Kwasi, you  can also go for university.ac.countryname depending on the 
> location of your country like ac.uk <http://ac.uk> for 
> www.oxford.ac.uk <http://www.oxford.ac.uk> (United Kingdom),  or.ac.ke 
> <http://ac.ke> like uonbi.ac.ke <http://uonbi.ac.ke> _(_Kenya)
>
> One question Internet Evangelists have been asking and Roland has 
> raised it is why US reserved .edu and .mil exclusively for themselves. 
> The opening up of the root to allow new GTLDs should answer that 
> question. We now have the chance to localise our TLD experiences. For 
> example, in large parts of East Africa, we speak Swahili which is the 
> official lingua franca. It is therefore logical that for our 
> universities, we should register a TLD .chuo. Chuo is the Swahili name 
> for University. Why would we want .edu while we can register .chuo?
>
> So instead of .mil, our region would go for .jeshi (Swahili for Army)
>
>
> Regards
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> twitter.com/lordmwesh <http://twitter.com/lordmwesh>
>
>
>
> On 20 March 2014 16:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 
> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Kwasi,
>
>     As you would have seen from the flurry of emails following your
>     post, .edu is reserved for American accredited educational
>     institutions. All other countries, usually have something like:-
>
>     InsertName.edu.au <http://InsertName.edu.au> or InsertName.edu.ccTLD
>
>     For end users, the shorter the domain the easier it is to
>     remember, hence preference for .edu
>     However, there are also merits in having a .edu.ccTLD or
>     .edu.africa for instance as it helps users distinguish location.
>
>     Just as .gov is reserved for the US and its territories whilst
>     other countries have .gov.fj <http://gov.fj> or .gov.ccTLD. Noting
>     that some countries use .gouv.ccTLD
>
>     Some of these things developed because of precedent and as a
>     consequence of innovation in the TLD space starting in the US etc.
>
>     Best Regards,
>     Sala
>
>
>     On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Katim S. Touray
>     <kstouray at gmail.com <mailto:kstouray at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Kwasi,
>
>         Here you go: https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/
>
>         Katim
>
>
>
>         On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong
>         <kboakye at gmail.com <mailto:kboakye at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hello folks,
>
>             I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>
>             I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension
>             but it appears that .edu extensions are not available.
>
>             Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a
>             .edu extension registered?
>
>             Regards,
>             Kwasi
>
>             -- 
>             /*We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start
>             a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration
>             seldom generates action.* /-- *Frank Tibolt*
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>             <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>             To be removed from the list, visit:
>             http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>             For all other list information and functions, see:
>             http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>             To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>             http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>             Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



---
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/b461368f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 13:33:04 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:33:04 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [Ottawadissenters] Snowden and US tech companies
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP739EDD6E3E274C50922078BD790@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP739EDD6E3E274C50922078BD790@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <006601cf452b$9e39eba0$daadc2e0$@gmail.com>

Fascinating. It is only in the area of Internet Governance that there seems
to be an unquestioned trust in the actions and motivations of relevant
"stakeholders" and particularly the USG and the major US Internet
corporations. I wonder why, and particularly for Civil Society who in other
spheres is rather more critical and skeptical?

 

M

 

From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:20 AM
To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; futurework at vancouvercommunity.net
Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Snowden and US tech companies

 

  

Revelations of N.S.A. Spying Cost U.S. Tech Companies

*	by Claire Cain Miller NYTimes
*	March 21, 2014 

. 

SAN FRANCISCO - Microsoft has lost customers, including the government of
Brazil.

IBM is spending more than a billion dollars to build data centers overseas
to reassure foreign customers that their information is safe from prying
eyes in the United States government.

And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South America, say they are
gaining customers that are shunning United States providers, suspicious
because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden that tied these providers to
the
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nationa
l_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org> National Security Agency's vast
surveillance program. 

Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr.
Snowden's leaks, the more urgent issue, companies and analysts say, is
economic. Tech executives, including Eric E. Schmidt of Google and Mark
Zuckerberg of Facebook, are expected to raise the issue when they return to
the White House on Friday for a meeting with President Obama. 

It is impossible to see now the full economic ramifications of the spying
disclosures- in part because most companies are locked in multiyear
contracts - but the pieces are beginning to add up as businesses question
the trustworthiness of American technology products. 

Meanwhile, the
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/world/admiral-set-to-face-confirmation-to
-lead-nsa.html> confirmation hearing last week for the new N.S.A. chief, the
<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/at-sxsw-snowden-speaks-about-n-s-a
-spying/> video appearance of Mr. Snowden at a technology conference in
Texas and the drip of new details about government spying have kept
attention focused on an issue that many tech executives have hoped would go
away.

Despite the tech companies' assertions that they provide information on
their customers only when required under law - and not knowingly through a
back door - the perception that they enabled the spying program has
lingered.

"It's clear to every single tech company that this is affecting their bottom
line," said Daniel Castro, a senior analyst at the Information Technology
and Innovation Foundation, who predicted that the United States cloud
computing industry could
<http://www.itif.org/publications/how-much-will-prism-cost-us-cloud-computin
g-industry> lose $35 billion by 2016.

Forrester Research, a technology research firm, said the losses could be
<http://blogs.forrester.com/james_staten/13-08-14-the_cost_of_prism_will_be_
larger_than_itif_projects> as high as $180 billion, or 25 percent of
industry revenue, based on the size of the cloud computing, web hosting and
outsourcing markets and the worst-case scenario for damages. 

The business effect of the disclosures about the N.S.A. is felt most in the
daily conversations between tech companies with products to pitch and their
wary customers. The topic of surveillance, which rarely came up before, is
now "the new normal" in these conversations, as one tech company executive
described it. 

"We're hearing from customers, especially global enterprise customers, that
they care more than ever about where their content is stored and how it is
used and secured," said John E. Frank, deputy general counsel at Microsoft,
which has been publicizing that it allows customers to store their data in
Microsoft data centers in certain countries. 

At the same time, Mr. Castro said, companies believe the federal government
is only making a bad situation worse.

"Most of the companies in this space are very frustrated because there
hasn't been any kind of response that's made it so they can go back to their
customers and say, 'See, this is what's different now, you can trust us
again,' " he said.

In some cases, that has meant forgoing potential revenue. 

Though it is hard to quantify missed opportunities, American businesses are
being left off some requests for proposals from foreign customers that
previously would have included them, said James Staten, a cloud computing
analyst at Forrester who has read clients' requests for proposals. There are
German companies, Mr. Staten said, "explicitly not inviting certain American
companies to join."

He added, "It's like, 'Well, the very best vendor to do this is IBM and you
didn't invite them.' " 

The result has been a boon for foreign companies. 

Runbox, a Norwegian email service that markets itself as an alternative to
American services like Gmail and says it does not comply with foreign court
orders seeking personal information, reported a 34 percent annual increase
in customers after news of the N.S.A. surveillance. 

Brazil and the European Union, which had used American undersea cables for
intercontinental communication, last month decided to build their own cables
between Brazil and Portugal, and gave the contract to Brazilian and Spanish
companies. Brazil also announced plans to abandon Microsoft Outlook for its
own email system that uses Brazilian data centers.

Mark J. Barrenechea, chief executive of OpenText, Canada's largest software
company, said an anti-American attitude took root after the passage of the
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_
act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> Patriot Act, the counterterrorism law
passed after 9/11 that expanded the government's surveillance powers. 

But "the volume of the discussion has risen significantly post-Snowden," he
said. For instance, after the N.S.A. surveillance was revealed, one of
OpenText's clients, a global steel manufacturer based in Britain, demanded
that its data not cross United States borders.

"Issues like privacy are more important than finding the cheapest price,"
said Matthias Kunisch, a German software executive who spurned United States
cloud computing providers for Deutsche Telekom. "Because of Snowden, our
customers have the perception that American companies have connections to
the N.S.A." 

Security analysts say that ultimately the fallout from Mr. Snowden's
revelations could mimic what happened to Huawei, the Chinese software
company, which was forced to abandon major acquisitions and contracts when
American lawmakers claimed that the company's products contained a backdoor
for the People's Liberation Army of China - even though this claim was never
definitively verified. 

Silicon Valley companies have complained to government officials that their
actions were hurting their business. But companies clam up when it comes to
specifics about economic harm, whether to avoid frightening shareholders or
because it is too early to produce concrete evidence. 

"The companies need to keep the priority on the government to do something
about it, but they don't have the evidence to go to the government and say
billions of dollars are not coming to this country," Mr. Staten said. 

Some American companies say the business hit has been minor at most. 

John T. Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems, said in an interview
that the N.S.A. disclosures had not affected Cisco's sales "in a major way."
Although deals in Europe and Asia have been slower to close, he said, they
are still being completed - an experience echoed by several other computing
companies. 

Still, the business blowback can be felt in other ways than lost customers.

Security analysts say tech companies have collectively spent millions and
possibly billions of dollars
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/technology/angry-over-us-surveillance-tec
h-giants-bolster-defenses.html> adding state-of-the-art encryption features
to consumer services, like Google search and Microsoft Outlook, and to the
cables that link data centers at Google, Yahoo and other companies. 

IBM said in January that it would spend $1.2 billion to build 15 new data
centers, including in London, Hong Kong and Sydney, to lure foreign
customers that are sensitive about the location of their data.
Salesforce.com announced similar plans this month. 

Meanwhile, lawmakers, including in Germany, are considering legislation that
would make it costly or even technically impossible for American tech
companies to operate inside their borders. 

Some government officials say laws like this could have a motive other than
protecting privacy. Shutting out American companies "means more business for
local companies," Richard A. Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism
adviser, said last month.

Original URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/business/fallout-from-snowden-hurting-bott
om-line-of-tech-companies.html?emc=edit_tu_20140321
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/business/fallout-from-snowden-hurting-bot
tom-line-of-tech-companies.html?emc=edit_tu_20140321&nl=technology&nlid=4223
025&_r=0> &nl=technology&nlid=4223025&_r=0

 <https://www.readability.com/recommendations/new/article/m74xqky7>
Recommend
<https://www.readability.com/articles/m74xqky7#flyout-share-export>
Share/export 

Did this article display correctly? Yes No 

Sending. 

Thank you for your feedback. 

 

__._,_.___


 
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/messages
/29193;_ylc=X3oDMTJycm5lMHVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQD
MTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMyOTE5MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzOTU0MjIzMTg-
?act=reply&messageNum=29193> Reply via web post 

 
<mailto:denart40 at sympatico.ca?subject=Re%3A%20Snowden%20and%20US%20tech%20co
mpanies%20> Reply to sender 

 
<mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Snowden%20and%20US%
20tech%20companies%20> Reply to group 

 
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/newtopic
;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNWY2cmFuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNT
A4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU0MjIzMTg-> Start a New Topic 

 
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/topics/2
9193;_ylc=X3oDMTM3cGtrYzhzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMT
cwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMyOTE5MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU0MjIzMTgEdH
BjSWQDMjkxOTM-> Messages in this topic (1) 

 
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNm1q
bzU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDdnRs
BHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU0MjIzMTg-> Visit Your Group 

.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/members/all;_ylc=X3oDM
TJnamUxdG5tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZ
WMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzk1NDIyMzE4> New Members 1 

 
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWhldGhqBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA
zE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5NTQyM
jMxOA--> Yahoo! Groups

.  <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
<mailto:Ottawadissenters-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
Unsubscribe .  <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of
Use 

.

 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15209059/grpspId=1705083512/msgI
d=29193/stime=1395422318> 

__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/8d2874b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 13:55:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:55:30 -0700
Subject: [governance] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
Message-ID: <00b301cf452e$c0548350$40fd89f0$@gmail.com>

Great to see Comcast <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast>  supporting the
public good err. it's stakeholder interests. err. "multistakeholderism" and
"our" institutions for supporting "enhanced democracy" err
"multistakeholderism" blithely accepting such sponsorship. 

M

From: Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM
Subject: Comcast & NBCUniversal Commit to Strategic IETF and ISOC Support
To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>



For IP if you wish:

 

The IETF and ISOC are incredibly important to us at Comcast and
NBCUniversal, to the Internet community, and to all Internet users. Today we
announced a new new nine-year strategic sponsorship agreement for the IETF
and ISOC. This is a clear demonstration of our commitment to support both,
in order to ensure a vibrant future for the Internet, and for the key
institutions that make it open, consensus-based, and multi-stakeholder.

Full details at
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-cable-and-nbcuniversal-c
ommit-to-strategic-ietf-and-isoc-support-partnerships and
http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/institutional/2014/03/nbcuniversal-and-c
omcast-sign-strategic-sponsorship-agreement-internet

 

Jason Livingood

Comcast

 

=============================================================

The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, (PSTN) 609 882-2572 

Back Issues: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docman
<http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37&
Itemid=61> &task=cat_view&gid=37&Itemid=61  

 Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog 

 http://www.cookreport.com/wp/

  Subscription info: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content
<http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&I
temid=65> &view=article&id=54&Itemid=65

=============================================================

 

 





 

 

 

 





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/ee24876e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 13:55:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:55:30 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading
 Your Email Too
Message-ID: <00b801cf452e$c1494390$43dbcab0$@gmail.com>

Some information on another Internet Freedom supporter and significant IG
"stakeholder"...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26677607

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:34 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading Your Email Too

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading Your
Email Too
Date: March 21, 2014 at 7:22:35 AM EDT
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com

Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading Your Email Too By ROBERT
MCMILLAN Mar 21 2014
<http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/03/transparency_reports/>

Ever since Edward Snowden revealed the NSA's widespread efforts to eavesdrop
on the web's most popular services - including Google and Microsoft and
Facebook - the leaders of these companies have called on the government to
be more transparent about the data it's lifting wholesale from their private
operations.

But lost in this debate over privacy and national security is another
question: How often are these internet companies snooping on their customers
themselves? You can now read polished and detailed "transparency reports"
that explain how often Google, Facebook, and Microsoft respond to government
requests for user data, but these reports don't say how often the companies
are doing this on their own.

It's a question that came to the fore this week when Microsoft helped U.S.
authorities arrest Alex Kibkalo, a Microsoft employee who allegedly leaked
company secrets to an outside blogger. Microsoft identified Kibkalo after
rummaging through the blogger's private email account, which happened to run
on its own email service, Hotmail.

All of the big web companies have detailed privacy policies, but they
generally give themselves broad rights to access customer email if they're
protecting their own rights, says Nicole Ozer, technology and civil
liberties policy director at the ACLU. "This situation should be a bit of a
wakeup call," she says of the Microsoft incident. "These email services are
not free. We're playing a high price for these email services when we click,
'I agree.'"

How big of a wakeup call? On Thursday, after fielding questions from
reporters about the Kibkalo situation, Microsoft suddenly announced that, in
its bi-annual transparency reports, it will start publishing information
about how often it accesses private customer data in this way.

That's a major policy change. Here's what led to the incident. Upset over a
bad performance review, Kibkalo allegedly leaked an unreleased version of
Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system to a blogger in France. According to
court documents, the August 18, 2012, Windows leak sparked an intense
internal investigation, and the turning point came in September 2012, when
an unnamed source tipped off Steven Sinofsky, the president of Microsoft's
Windows Division at the time.

The source gave Sinofsky a Hotmail address that belonged to the French
blogger (also not named) and said that the blogger was the person who had
received the leaked software. Microsoft had already been interested in the
blogger, but apparently, after the tip-off, the company's security team did
something that raised alarm bells with privacy advocates. Instead of taking
their evidence to law enforcement, they decided to search through the
blogger's private messages themselves. Four days after Sinofsky's tip-off,
Microsoft lawyers "approved content pulls of the blogger's Hotmail account,"
the court filings state.

By trolling through the Hotmail email messages and MSN Messenger instant
message logs, Microsoft learnt how Kibkalo and the blogger pulled off the
leak, says Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Armando Ramirez
III, in an affidavit filed in connection with the case. Microsoft handed
over the results of its investigation to the FBI in 2013, and Kibkalo was
arrested on Wednesday.

In a statement, Microsoft said that this kind of search happens "only in the
most exceptional circumstances." But the company couldn't say how many of
these searches it has done in the past.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43
08
Unsubscribe Now:
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9
7c5b007&post_id=20140321073433:C3BA81FA-B0EC-11E3-8C43-A34846FD82EE
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Fri Mar 21 15:40:42 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:40:42 -0800
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwqYZmLy5w_cXKihG-g9hQyzQBYPPXicNzjW6Kq14Pi58w@mail.gmail.com>

That is correct. At least there are three universities in Kenya, East
Africa that use the .edu prefix, that is www.cuea.edu,
www.strathmore.edu and www.usiu.edu

Imagine you are using non Latin/Roman script, would you still want to
use .edu? That is why IDNs have been a big topic in resent Internet
Governance campaigns.

Regards

On 21/03/2014, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:
> I believe Roland & others are mistaken here.
>
> To the best of my knowledge this string was not reserved by the US for
> exclusive use by themselves but
> is overseen by Educause   (see www.educause.edu). a group of over 1,800
> colleges and universities collaborating
> on common higher education IT challenges--sharing the mission of
> transforming higher education through the use of information technology.
>
> Here is a clip from their website
>
> EDUCAUSE actively engages with U.S. and international colleges and
> universities, corporations, foundations, government, and other nonprofit
> associations to further the mission of transforming higher education
> through the use of information technology. While we are an association
> predominantly based in the United States, we recognize that "uncommon
> thinking for the common good" can emerge anywhere in the world. Our
> strategic direction is to serve as a leader for the profession,
> convening the community on significant technology issues facing member
> institutions and higher education overall.
>
> EDUCAUSE is proud to count over 260 non-U.S. institutions and 30
> associations and corporations based outside the United States among its
> members. We are equally proud that their participation extends to the
> leadership of the EDUCAUSE community, including representation on the
> EDUCAUSE Board of Directors.
>
> Mike roberts can probably give you some history on .EDU. as he was involved
> for sometime with the organization
>
> Ken Stubbs
>
>
>
> On 3/21/2014 12:28 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
>> Kwasi, you  can also go for university.ac.countryname depending on the
>> location of your country like ac.uk <http://ac.uk> for
>> www.oxford.ac.uk <http://www.oxford.ac.uk> (United Kingdom),  or.ac.ke
>> <http://ac.ke> like uonbi.ac.ke <http://uonbi.ac.ke> _(_Kenya)
>>
>> One question Internet Evangelists have been asking and Roland has
>> raised it is why US reserved .edu and .mil exclusively for themselves.
>> The opening up of the root to allow new GTLDs should answer that
>> question. We now have the chance to localise our TLD experiences. For
>> example, in large parts of East Africa, we speak Swahili which is the
>> official lingua franca. It is therefore logical that for our
>> universities, we should register a TLD .chuo. Chuo is the Swahili name
>> for University. Why would we want .edu while we can register .chuo?
>>
>> So instead of .mil, our region would go for .jeshi (Swahili for Army)
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> ______________________
>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>> twitter.com/lordmwesh <http://twitter.com/lordmwesh>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 March 2014 16:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Kwasi,
>>
>>     As you would have seen from the flurry of emails following your
>>     post, .edu is reserved for American accredited educational
>>     institutions. All other countries, usually have something like:-
>>
>>     InsertName.edu.au <http://InsertName.edu.au> or InsertName.edu.ccTLD
>>
>>     For end users, the shorter the domain the easier it is to
>>     remember, hence preference for .edu
>>     However, there are also merits in having a .edu.ccTLD or
>>     .edu.africa for instance as it helps users distinguish location.
>>
>>     Just as .gov is reserved for the US and its territories whilst
>>     other countries have .gov.fj <http://gov.fj> or .gov.ccTLD. Noting
>>     that some countries use .gouv.ccTLD
>>
>>     Some of these things developed because of precedent and as a
>>     consequence of innovation in the TLD space starting in the US etc.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>     Sala
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Katim S. Touray
>>     <kstouray at gmail.com <mailto:kstouray at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Kwasi,
>>
>>         Here you go: https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/
>>
>>         Katim
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong
>>         <kboakye at gmail.com <mailto:kboakye at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Hello folks,
>>
>>             I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>>
>>             I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension
>>             but it appears that .edu extensions are not available.
>>
>>             Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a
>>             .edu extension registered?
>>
>>             Regards,
>>             Kwasi
>>
>>             --
>>             /*We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start
>>             a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration
>>             seldom generates action.* /-- *Frank Tibolt*
>>
>>             ____________________________________________________________
>>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>             governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>             <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>             To be removed from the list, visit:
>>             http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>             For all other list information and functions, see:
>>             http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>             To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>             http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>             Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 16:22:43 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:22:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be
 Reading Your Email Too
In-Reply-To: <00b801cf452e$c1494390$43dbcab0$@gmail.com>
References: <00b801cf452e$c1494390$43dbcab0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B66BF000-FC9D-4FB7-A767-6AFCBC4003DE@theglobaljournal.net>

...And in the name of "Freedom of expression" for... business, as ever.

Amusingly, giving up the idea of local storage turns out to be more challenging to the Google, FB and others, as Brazil president wants foreign to companies to " be subject to Brazilian rules in case of legal disputes involving data, regardless of whether it is stored elsewhere."


It seems like the Marco Civil da Internet is now going that easy, and Rousseff wants to regulate net neutrality by presidential decree. For once, a governmental player, head of state seems to be fighting for its people.

JC

Brazil gives up on local data storage, demands net neutrality

Summary: Government backs down on demands of local datacenters in a bid to get support from the opposition but net neutrality remains a sticking point


By Angelica Mari for Brazil Tech |	March 19, 2014 -- 20:07 GMT (13:07 PDT)

Topics: Mobility, Government, IT Priorities, IT Policies, IT Security in the Snowden Era

In the latest chapter of Brazil's Marco Civil da Internet, Dilma Rousseff's government has backed down from its intentions to demand that companies store data locally in order to get opposition support to pass the country's first set of internet governance rules.

Despite being unhappy about the numerous delays around the voting of the Bill, the president agreed to postpone it once again to remove the requirement for local datacenters.

Even though Rousseff and key ministers had voiced their preference to enforce local storage followingthe NSA espionage scandal, the requirements were strongly criticized by businesses and the opposition - their point being that this could mean cost increases to users since companies would have to build local facilities.

The government may have given up on local storage demands, but will require that companies will be subject to Brazilian rules in case of legal disputes involving data, regardless of whether it is stored elsewhere.

"The question that is not negotiable is that the Brazilian law should be applicable to any data that has originated or circulates here in Brazil. Of course, having the data stored locally would make [the enforcement of the local regulations] easier," congressional relations minister Ideli Salvatti told Radio Estadão.

However, ditching local storage is not enough as net neutrality remains the most controversial point of the Marco Civil. Supported by the opposition, the telco industry wants to continue to base its business on data discrimination - this means setting higher or lower speeds according to individual internet usage patterns, load certain websites faster and also offer free access to certain content while charging for others.

While the government does not want to negotiate net neutrality, Dilma also wants to be able to regulate it by presidential decree after the Marco Civil is approved - but part of the government's supporter base and the opposition do not agree on that particular move.

Opposition leader Eduardo Cunha has said openly that a decree to regulate how telcos operate is a major annoyance, adding that this would get on the way of "freedom." However, the freedom cited by Cunha is more to do with business models rather than internet user rights.

The disagreements and the escalating tension between the opposition and the president's main ministers - particularly minister Salvatti, who was one of the main supporters of the requirement for local datacenters and was pushing for the voting of the Marco to take place yesterday - prompted the voting of the Bill to be postponed once again until next Tuesday (25).

The Marco Civil is now right at the center of a political battle involving interests that dig deeper than just guaranteeing civil rights in the use of the Internet - but Dilma wants to sanction it before April, when Brazil will be hosting a global internet governance event. However, time is short and the list of challenges appears to be getting longer.


Le 21 mars 2014 à 18:55, michael gurstein a écrit :

> Some information on another Internet Freedom supporter and significant IG
> "stakeholder"...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26677607
> 
> M 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:34 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading Your Email Too
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading Your
> Email Too
> Date: March 21, 2014 at 7:22:35 AM EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
> Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com
> 
> Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be Reading Your Email Too By ROBERT
> MCMILLAN Mar 21 2014
> <http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/03/transparency_reports/>
> 
> Ever since Edward Snowden revealed the NSA's widespread efforts to eavesdrop
> on the web's most popular services - including Google and Microsoft and
> Facebook - the leaders of these companies have called on the government to
> be more transparent about the data it's lifting wholesale from their private
> operations.
> 
> But lost in this debate over privacy and national security is another
> question: How often are these internet companies snooping on their customers
> themselves? You can now read polished and detailed "transparency reports"
> that explain how often Google, Facebook, and Microsoft respond to government
> requests for user data, but these reports don't say how often the companies
> are doing this on their own.
> 
> It's a question that came to the fore this week when Microsoft helped U.S.
> authorities arrest Alex Kibkalo, a Microsoft employee who allegedly leaked
> company secrets to an outside blogger. Microsoft identified Kibkalo after
> rummaging through the blogger's private email account, which happened to run
> on its own email service, Hotmail.
> 
> All of the big web companies have detailed privacy policies, but they
> generally give themselves broad rights to access customer email if they're
> protecting their own rights, says Nicole Ozer, technology and civil
> liberties policy director at the ACLU. "This situation should be a bit of a
> wakeup call," she says of the Microsoft incident. "These email services are
> not free. We're playing a high price for these email services when we click,
> 'I agree.'"
> 
> How big of a wakeup call? On Thursday, after fielding questions from
> reporters about the Kibkalo situation, Microsoft suddenly announced that, in
> its bi-annual transparency reports, it will start publishing information
> about how often it accesses private customer data in this way.
> 
> That's a major policy change. Here's what led to the incident. Upset over a
> bad performance review, Kibkalo allegedly leaked an unreleased version of
> Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system to a blogger in France. According to
> court documents, the August 18, 2012, Windows leak sparked an intense
> internal investigation, and the turning point came in September 2012, when
> an unnamed source tipped off Steven Sinofsky, the president of Microsoft's
> Windows Division at the time.
> 
> The source gave Sinofsky a Hotmail address that belonged to the French
> blogger (also not named) and said that the blogger was the person who had
> received the leaked software. Microsoft had already been interested in the
> blogger, but apparently, after the tip-off, the company's security team did
> something that raised alarm bells with privacy advocates. Instead of taking
> their evidence to law enforcement, they decided to search through the
> blogger's private messages themselves. Four days after Sinofsky's tip-off,
> Microsoft lawyers "approved content pulls of the blogger's Hotmail account,"
> the court filings state.
> 
> By trolling through the Hotmail email messages and MSN Messenger instant
> message logs, Microsoft learnt how Kibkalo and the blogger pulled off the
> leak, says Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Armando Ramirez
> III, in an affidavit filed in connection with the case. Microsoft handed
> over the results of its investigation to the FBI in 2013, and Kibkalo was
> arrested on Wednesday.
> 
> In a statement, Microsoft said that this kind of search happens "only in the
> most exceptional circumstances." But the company couldn't say how many of
> these searches it has done in the past.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43
> 08
> Unsubscribe Now:
> https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9
> 7c5b007&post_id=20140321073433:C3BA81FA-B0EC-11E3-8C43-A34846FD82EE
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/e22d2696/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Mar 21 16:33:47 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:33:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be
 Reading Your Email Too
In-Reply-To: <B66BF000-FC9D-4FB7-A767-6AFCBC4003DE@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <00b801cf452e$c1494390$43dbcab0$@gmail.com> <B66BF000-FC9D-4FB7-A767-6AFCBC4003DE@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgMXJOPp0Hk+STw992EWBNhsj4o0Adaa4hLRDgaLtcprA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> ...And in the name of "Freedom of expression" for... business, as ever.
>
> Amusingly, giving up the idea of local storage turns out to be more
> challenging to the Google, FB and others
>



Nowhere in the article you posted does it mention Google or FB as being
unwilling to support NN.

These are Telcos who want "Freedom" to milk their customers, not "Freedom
of Expression".


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/b7ac4991/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Fri Mar 21 16:41:41 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:41:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be
 Reading Your Email Too
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgMXJOPp0Hk+STw992EWBNhsj4o0Adaa4hLRDgaLtcprA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00b801cf452e$c1494390$43dbcab0$@gmail.com> <B66BF000-FC9D-4FB7-A767-6AFCBC4003DE@theglobaljournal.net> <CACAaNxgMXJOPp0Hk+STw992EWBNhsj4o0Adaa4hLRDgaLtcprA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0F02A6B3-AE3E-41DE-8639-1017712913E6@theglobaljournal.net>

You are right McTim,
But, to please you, lets look at this Reuters report regarding the same topic where Google Inc, Facebook... are duly mentioned.

And let's see if Google et al are ok to accept Brazilian Laws for Brazilian cases, and German laws, and French laws, and Indian Laws....

:-)

I am sure the Google PRs are already working on this


Brazil to drop local data storage rule in Internet bill
BY ANTHONY BOADLE
BRASILIA Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:24pm EDT
0 COMMENTS
inShare
12
Share this

Email
Print

The National Security Agency (NSA) logo is shown on a computer screen inside the Threat Operations Center at the NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland, January 25, 2006 FILE PHOTO.
CREDIT: REUTERS/JASON REED
RELATED TOPICS
Tech »
Media »
(Reuters) - Brazil will drop a controversial provision that would have forced global Internet companies to store data on Brazilian users inside the country to shield them from U.S. spying, a government minister said on Tuesday.

The rule was added last year to proposed Internet governance legislation after revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency had spied on the digital communications of Brazilians, including those of their President Dilma Rousseff and the country's biggest company Petroleo Brasileiro SA.

Instead, the legislation will say that companies such as Google Inc and Facebook Inc are subject to Brazilian laws in cases involving information on Brazilians even if the data is stored abroad, congressional relations minister Ideli Salvatti told reporters.

She said the bill, which is opposed by Rousseff allies in the lower chamber of Congress, has enough support to be put to the vote on Wednesday.

Salvatti said the government will not negotiate a key provision in the bill on net neutrality, which has faced strong opposition from telecom companies in Brazil because it would bar them from introducing differential pricing according to Internet usage and speeds, such as higher rates for downloading videos.

Regulation of the business aspects of the new legislation can be done later by executive decree, she said.

The legislation dubbed Brazil's "Internet Constitution" protects freedom of expression, safeguards privacy and sets limits to the gathering and use of metadata on Internet users.

It ran into opposition from government allies in the PMDB party, Brazil´s largest, who opposed the net neutrality provision, while the requirement for in-country data storage had the Internet companies up in arms. They complained it would increase their costs and erect unnecessary barriers in one of the world's largest Internet markets.

However, following the spying revelations based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, requiring Internet companies to store data on Brazilians inside the country so that it could be subject to Brazilian laws became a priority for Rousseff.

Documents leaked by Snowden last year included revelations that the NSA secretly collected data stored on servers by Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo Inc.

Facebook has some 70 million users in Brazil, its third biggest market after the United States and India, and Google has a big slice of the local digital advertising market.

The reported espionage using powerful Internet surveillance programs upset relations between the United States and Brazil and led Rousseff to cancel a state visit to Washington in October and denounce massive electronic surveillance of the Internet in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

Rousseff and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, another leader allegedly spied on by the NSA, have led international efforts to limit mass electronic surveillance and Brazil will host a global conference on the future of Internet governance next month.

(Additional reporting by Maria Carolina Marcello; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

__________________________

Jean-Christophe Nothias 
Editor in Chief
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
@jc_nothias

Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook 
Follow my Op-Eds at the Huffington Post US







Palais des Nations SP2-53
8-14 avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva, Switzerland

T: +41 22 917 12 97
www.theglobaljournal.com
 



Le 21 mars 2014 à 21:33, McTim a écrit :

> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> ...And in the name of "Freedom of expression" for... business, as ever.
> 
> Amusingly, giving up the idea of local storage turns out to be more challenging to the Google, FB and others
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the article you posted does it mention Google or FB as being unwilling to support NN.
> 
> These are Telcos who want "Freedom" to milk their customers, not "Freedom of Expression".
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/4fdff59b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: r.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/4fdff59b/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Global_logo-175x50px.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14790 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/4fdff59b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 21:06:34 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:36:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [Ottawadissenters] Snowden and US tech
 companies
In-Reply-To: <006601cf452b$9e39eba0$daadc2e0$@gmail.com>
References: <BLU0-SMTP739EDD6E3E274C50922078BD790@phx.gbl> <006601cf452b$9e39eba0$daadc2e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <777CDC2F-5C4E-4578-B91D-33805A590594@hserus.net>

As for the bolded text in the first paragraph, about companies spending billions of dollars to open international data centers, may I just point out that, for compliance reasons related to export of PII/SPI, and network performance reasons, companies worldwide have been rolling out local data centers in each country that they do a significant volume of business?

This is a standard practice from years before the snowden revelations, so while I appreciate the article, it needs at least a few reality checks here and there.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 23:03, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Fascinating… It is only in the area of Internet Governance that there seems to be an unquestioned trust in the actions and motivations of relevant “stakeholders” and particularly the USG and the major US Internet corporations. I wonder why, and particularly for Civil Society who in other spheres is rather more critical and skeptical?
>  
> M
>  
> From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:20 AM
> To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; futurework at vancouvercommunity.net
> Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Snowden and US tech companies
>  
>  
> Revelations of N.S.A. Spying Cost U.S. Tech Companies
> by Claire Cain Miller NYTimes
> March 21, 2014
> •
> SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft has lost customers, including the government of Brazil.
> IBM is spending more than a billion dollars to build data centers overseas to reassure foreign customers that their information is safe from prying eyes in the United States government.
> And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South America, say they are gaining customers that are shunning United States providers, suspicious because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden that tied these providers to the National Security Agency’s vast surveillance program.
> Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowden’s leaks, the more urgent issue, companies and analysts say, is economic. Tech executives, including Eric E. Schmidt of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, are expected to raise the issue when they return to the White House on Friday for a meeting with President Obama.
> It is impossible to see now the full economic ramifications of the spying disclosures— in part because most companies are locked in multiyear contracts — but the pieces are beginning to add up as businesses question the trustworthiness of American technology products.
> Meanwhile, the confirmation hearing last week for the new N.S.A. chief, the video appearance of Mr. Snowden at a technology conference in Texas and the drip of new details about government spying have kept attention focused on an issue that many tech executives have hoped would go away.
> Despite the tech companies’ assertions that they provide information on their customers only when required under law — and not knowingly through a back door — the perception that they enabled the spying program has lingered.
> “It’s clear to every single tech company that this is affecting their bottom line,” said Daniel Castro, a senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, who predicted that the United States cloud computing industry could lose $35 billion by 2016.
> Forrester Research, a technology research firm, said the losses could be as high as $180 billion, or 25 percent of industry revenue, based on t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/fa1bda88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 21 21:09:02 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:39:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <00b301cf452e$c0548350$40fd89f0$@gmail.com>
References: <00b301cf452e$c0548350$40fd89f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99FDE5C4-1F88-4CB3-AD21-E4758FE2F4F7@hserus.net>

Too many quotation marks.  If you haven't been around IETF circles, Jason has been a valued participant for several years, as have more than one engineer from comcast.  And since when did the IETF become "your" institution?  Do you by any chance have an RFC or a BCP to your credit, that I missed?

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 23:25, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Great to see Comcast supporting the public good err… it’s stakeholder interests… err… “multistakeholderism” and “our” institutions for supporting “enhanced democracy” err “multistakeholderism” blithely accepting such sponsorship…
> 
> M
> 
> From: Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com>
> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM
> Subject: Comcast & NBCUniversal Commit to Strategic IETF and ISOC Support
> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
> 
> 
> For IP if you wish:
>  
> The IETF and ISOC are incredibly important to us at Comcast and NBCUniversal, to the Internet community, and to all Internet users. Today we announced a new new nine-year strategic sponsorship agreement for the IETF and ISOC. This is a clear demonstration of our commitment to support both, in order to ensure a vibrant future for the Internet, and for the key institutions that make it open, consensus-based, and multi-stakeholder.
> 
> Full details at http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-cable-and-nbcuniversal-commit-to-strategic-ietf-and-isoc-support-partnerships and http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/institutional/2014/03/nbcuniversal-and-comcast-sign-strategic-sponsorship-agreement-internet
> 
>  
> Jason Livingood
> Comcast
>  
> =============================================================
> The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, (PSTN) 609 882-2572 
> Back Issues: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37&Itemid=61  
>  Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog 
>  http://www.cookreport.com/wp/
>   Subscription info: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/b0aa288e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 21 21:12:59 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:42:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwqYZmLy5w_cXKihG-g9hQyzQBYPPXicNzjW6Kq14Pi58w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com> <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info> <CAEhPqwqYZmLy5w_cXKihG-g9hQyzQBYPPXicNzjW6Kq14Pi58w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB399165-643F-4B2D-B6AC-CA72FBD1F3EE@hserus.net>

Indeed, it makes a lot of sense from an administrative (local support for the TLD) and cultural / language point of view for IDNs, and for non IDN TLDs to have local language words written in english script.

On that note, I am glad that the .africa controversy seems to be finally settled and the TLD is on its way to deployment.

--srs (iPad)

> On 22-Mar-2014, at 1:10, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> 
> That is correct. At least there are three universities in Kenya, East
> Africa that use the .edu prefix, that is www.cuea.edu,
> www.strathmore.edu and www.usiu.edu
> 
> Imagine you are using non Latin/Roman script, would you still want to
> use .edu? That is why IDNs have been a big topic in resent Internet
> Governance campaigns.
> 
> Regards
> 
>> On 21/03/2014, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:
>> I believe Roland & others are mistaken here.
>> 
>> To the best of my knowledge this string was not reserved by the US for
>> exclusive use by themselves but
>> is overseen by Educause   (see www.educause.edu). a group of over 1,800
>> colleges and universities collaborating
>> on common higher education IT challenges--sharing the mission of
>> transforming higher education through the use of information technology.
>> 
>> Here is a clip from their website
>> 
>> EDUCAUSE actively engages with U.S. and international colleges and
>> universities, corporations, foundations, government, and other nonprofit
>> associations to further the mission of transforming higher education
>> through the use of information technology. While we are an association
>> predominantly based in the United States, we recognize that "uncommon
>> thinking for the common good" can emerge anywhere in the world. Our
>> strategic direction is to serve as a leader for the profession,
>> convening the community on significant technology issues facing member
>> institutions and higher education overall.
>> 
>> EDUCAUSE is proud to count over 260 non-U.S. institutions and 30
>> associations and corporations based outside the United States among its
>> members. We are equally proud that their participation extends to the
>> leadership of the EDUCAUSE community, including representation on the
>> EDUCAUSE Board of Directors.
>> 
>> Mike roberts can probably give you some history on .EDU. as he was involved
>> for sometime with the organization
>> 
>> Ken Stubbs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3/21/2014 12:28 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
>>> Kwasi, you  can also go for university.ac.countryname depending on the
>>> location of your country like ac.uk <http://ac.uk> for
>>> www.oxford.ac.uk <http://www.oxford.ac.uk> (United Kingdom),  or.ac.ke
>>> <http://ac.ke> like uonbi.ac.ke <http://uonbi.ac.ke> _(_Kenya)
>>> 
>>> One question Internet Evangelists have been asking and Roland has
>>> raised it is why US reserved .edu and .mil exclusively for themselves.
>>> The opening up of the root to allow new GTLDs should answer that
>>> question. We now have the chance to localise our TLD experiences. For
>>> example, in large parts of East Africa, we speak Swahili which is the
>>> official lingua franca. It is therefore logical that for our
>>> universities, we should register a TLD .chuo. Chuo is the Swahili name
>>> for University. Why would we want .edu while we can register .chuo?
>>> 
>>> So instead of .mil, our region would go for .jeshi (Swahili for Army)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> ______________________
>>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>>> twitter.com/lordmwesh <http://twitter.com/lordmwesh>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 20 March 2014 16:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    Hi Kwasi,
>>> 
>>>    As you would have seen from the flurry of emails following your
>>>    post, .edu is reserved for American accredited educational
>>>    institutions. All other countries, usually have something like:-
>>> 
>>>    InsertName.edu.au <http://InsertName.edu.au> or InsertName.edu.ccTLD
>>> 
>>>    For end users, the shorter the domain the easier it is to
>>>    remember, hence preference for .edu
>>>    However, there are also merits in having a .edu.ccTLD or
>>>    .edu.africa for instance as it helps users distinguish location.
>>> 
>>>    Just as .gov is reserved for the US and its territories whilst
>>>    other countries have .gov.fj <http://gov.fj> or .gov.ccTLD. Noting
>>>    that some countries use .gouv.ccTLD
>>> 
>>>    Some of these things developed because of precedent and as a
>>>    consequence of innovation in the TLD space starting in the US etc.
>>> 
>>>    Best Regards,
>>>    Sala
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Katim S. Touray
>>>    <kstouray at gmail.com <mailto:kstouray at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Kwasi,
>>> 
>>>        Here you go: https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/
>>> 
>>>        Katim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong
>>>        <kboakye at gmail.com <mailto:kboakye at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>            Hello folks,
>>> 
>>>            I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>>> 
>>>            I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension
>>>            but it appears that .edu extensions are not available.
>>> 
>>>            Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a
>>>            .edu extension registered?
>>> 
>>>            Regards,
>>>            Kwasi
>>> 
>>>            --
>>>            /*We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start
>>>            a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration
>>>            seldom generates action.* /-- *Frank Tibolt*
>>> 
>>>            ____________________________________________________________
>>>            You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>            governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>            <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>            To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>            http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>>            For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>            http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>            To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>            http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>>            Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>        <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>        To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>        http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>>        For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>        http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>        http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>>        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>    To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>>    For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>    To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>>    Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>> protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> twitter.com/lordmwesh
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Mar 21 21:17:28 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:47:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Forget the NSA. Tech Companies May Be
 Reading Your Email Too
In-Reply-To: <0F02A6B3-AE3E-41DE-8639-1017712913E6@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <00b801cf452e$c1494390$43dbcab0$@gmail.com> <B66BF000-FC9D-4FB7-A767-6AFCBC4003DE@theglobaljournal.net> <CACAaNxgMXJOPp0Hk+STw992EWBNhsj4o0Adaa4hLRDgaLtcprA@mail.gmail.com> <0F02A6B3-AE3E-41DE-8639-1017712913E6@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <0D880876-6DC9-4E38-A241-7988001DDE0A@hserus.net>

Keeping local data local is rather hard from a technical point of view, especially when it is something like SMTP based email.  And even when you crack that problem, there's the question of where to keep it reliably - how many countries have the clean power, high quality datacenters, trained staff locally available to keep things running, adequate and non lossy network connectivity with extensive international bandwidth across multiple redundant links etc necessary for such a move?

[Note - even countries which have their own local datacenters may not have one or more of the rest of these criteria]

I am glad that such a knotty technical problem amuses you, but of course you aren't the one called upon to offer a solution to it.

--srs (iPad)

> On 22-Mar-2014, at 2:11, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
> You are right McTim,
> But, to please you, lets look at this Reuters report regarding the same topic where Google Inc, Facebook... are duly mentioned.
> 
> And let's see if Google et al are ok to accept Brazilian Laws for Brazilian cases, and German laws, and French laws, and Indian Laws....
> 
> :-)
> 
> I am sure the Google PRs are already working on this
> 
> 
> Brazil to drop local data storage rule in Internet bill
> BY ANTHONY BOADLE
> BRASILIA Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:24pm EDT
> 0 COMMENTS
> inShare
> 12
> Share this
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/f0521626/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Mar 22 05:33:35 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:33:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <532C765C.3020608 at afilias.info>, at 13:26:52 on Fri, 21 Mar 
2014, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> writes
>I believe Roland & others are mistaken here.
>
>To the best of my knowledge this string was not reserved by the US for 
>exclusive use by themselves but
>is overseen by Educause   (see www.educause.edu). a group of over 1,800 
>colleges and universities collaborating
>on common higher education IT challenges—sharing the mission of 
>transforming higher education through the use of information technology.

I'm aware that the registry is run by Educause, but I've also quoted 
from the rules on their website which state the restrictions on 
registrations in .edu (which I expect have been handed down by the 
Department of Commerce as part of the contract).

In other words, it's not open to "all members of Educause", furthermore 
making membership of Educuase a requirement for registration would also 
be a matter for concerned debate.

I'm not saying Educause is the wrong entity to be administering the 
gTLD, merely commenting on the rules they have to work within.
-- 
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 kstouray at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 06:47:27 2014
From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:47:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
	<4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I hope we have not lost sight of the question that started all of this
debate: how can Kwasi register a .edu domain name? Now that the road has
been pointed out to him/her, and it leads to Educause, I think it would be
great if s(he) contacts them to find out what the rules are. S(he) can also
try contacting those non-US institutions that have .edu domain names and
ask them how they did it. Finally, it would be great to get feedback on the
fruits of his/her efforts.

And let me conclude by saying that the original question apart, a very
interesting discussion on related issues is being had here.

Katim



On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <532C765C.3020608 at afilias.info>, at 13:26:52 on Fri, 21 Mar
> 2014, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> writes
>
>  I believe Roland & others are mistaken here.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge this string was not reserved by the US for
>> exclusive use by themselves but
>> is overseen by Educause   (see www.educause.edu). a group of over 1,800
>> colleges and universities collaborating
>> on common higher education IT challenges--sharing the mission of
>> transforming higher education through the use of information technology.
>>
>
> I'm aware that the registry is run by Educause, but I've also quoted from
> the rules on their website which state the restrictions on registrations in
> .edu (which I expect have been handed down by the Department of Commerce as
> part of the contract).
>
> In other words, it's not open to "all members of Educause", furthermore
> making membership of Educuase a requirement for registration would also be
> a matter for concerned debate.
>
> I'm not saying Educause is the wrong entity to be administering the gTLD,
> merely commenting on the rules they have to work within.
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/e9651b47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Mar 22 07:20:44 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:20:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info> <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <HVTo3FvMIXLTFAvf@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug at mail.gmail.com>, at 
10:47:27 on Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> 
writes
>I hope we have not lost sight of the question that started all of this 
>debate: how can Kwasi register a .edu domain name? Now that the road 
>has been pointed out to him/her, and it leads to Educause, I think it 
>would be great if s(he) contacts them to find out what the rules are.

I've already looked at that website and posted what appear to be the 
rules, right at the start of this discussion.

>S(he) can also try contacting those non-US institutions that have .edu 
>domain names and ask them how they did it. 

A good idea, although the DNS space is full of historical anomalies that 
are often not useful as precedent for new applications.

I'm currently working with some people who are trying to apply for a new 
ccTLD, and the main argument being used to refuse it is "we know other 
people in the past succeeded with an application just like yours, but 
times have changed, and today we say NO".

Hence, in part, my interest in the rules for such things.

>Finally, it would be great to get feedback on the fruits of his/her 
>efforts

Whatever the issue, I would personally welcome it if many more people 
did report back what happened after they've sought assistance, because 
it will always help future calls for assistance.
-- 
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 kstouray at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 07:29:31 2014
From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:29:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <HVTo3FvMIXLTFAvf@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
	<4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
	<HVTo3FvMIXLTFAvf@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CAJhHpNv6eROfW5HtexURjm0J0rcKmhA97n01tnXxHCqEaDe_bw@mail.gmail.com>

Rolan,

You said:


Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> writes
>
>  I hope we have not lost sight of the question that started all of this
>> debate: how can Kwasi register a .edu domain name? Now that the road has
>> been pointed out to him/her, and it leads to Educause, I think it would be
>> great if s(he) contacts them to find out what the rules are.
>>
>
> I've already looked at that website and posted what appear to be the
> rules, right at the start of this discussion.
>
>
I know you already did, but in addition to the fact that many a Web site
are out of date (not to say that the Educause one is), there's nothing to
lose by asking them directly.

Katim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/4fd69b50/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Sat Mar 22 08:32:10 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:02:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>	<532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>	<4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com> <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532D82CA.1000108@ITforChange.net>

On 03/22/2014 04:17 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I hope we have not lost sight of the question that started all of this 
> debate: how can Kwasi register a .edu domain name? Now that the road 
> has been pointed out to him/her, and it leads to Educause, I think it 
> would be great if s(he) contacts them to find out what the rules are. 
> S(he) can also try contacting those non-US institutions that have .edu 
> domain names and ask them how they did it. Finally, it would be great 
> to get feedback on the fruits of his/her efforts.
>

the question is - the Internet is a global resource... even if 
historically US had an important role in its creation.
this means .edu cannot be reserved only for US entities. and this would 
be one of several several steps to be taken to make the governance of  
the Internet more democratic.

Guru

> And let me conclude by saying that the original question apart, a very 
> interesting discussion on related issues is being had here.
>
> Katim
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 22 08:32:47 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:02:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>	<532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>	<4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com> <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net>

On 03/22/2014 04:17 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I hope we have not lost sight of the question that started all of this 
> debate: how can Kwasi register a .edu domain name? Now that the road 
> has been pointed out to him/her, and it leads to Educause, I think it 
> would be great if s(he) contacts them to find out what the rules are. 
> S(he) can also try contacting those non-US institutions that have .edu 
> domain names and ask them how they did it. Finally, it would be great 
> to get feedback on the fruits of his/her efforts.
>

the question is - the Internet is a global resource... even if 
historically US had an important role in its creation.
this means .edu cannot be reserved only for US entities. and this would 
be one of several several steps to be taken to make the governance of  
the Internet more democratic (or perhaps I should just say, 'make the 
governance democratic').

Guru

> And let me conclude by saying that the original question apart, a very 
> interesting discussion on related issues is being had here.
>
> Katim
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 22 10:09:56 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:09:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info> <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com> <532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiv6HqrFzzdPjWTB-Wt0+dJV=w+h5fQyrT4x4OpTP6Kxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On 03/22/2014 04:17 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I hope we have not lost sight of the question that started all of this
>> debate: how can Kwasi register a .edu domain name? Now that the road has
>> been pointed out to him/her, and it leads to Educause, I think it would be
>> great if s(he) contacts them to find out what the rules are. S(he) can also
>> try contacting those non-US institutions that have .edu domain names and
>> ask them how they did it. Finally, it would be great to get feedback on the
>> fruits of his/her efforts.
>>
>>
> the question is - the Internet is a global resource... even if
> historically US had an important role in its creation.
> this means .edu cannot be


Well actually it CAN be,  perhaps it should not be, but that is a different
issue from the existence of open, restricted TLDs.  Are you saying that
there cannot be ANY open, restricted TLDs such as .edu?






> reserved only for US entities. and this would be one of several several
> steps to be taken to make the governance of  the Internet more democratic
> (or perhaps I should just say, 'make the governance democratic').




I would be happy to support this, but there are lots of ccTLD folks who
probably wouldn't be pleased with it however.  YMMV.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/21c06194/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu  Sat Mar 22 10:42:52 2014
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:42:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiv6HqrFzzdPjWTB-Wt0+dJV=w+h5fQyrT4x4OpTP6Kxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com> <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info> <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com> <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com> <532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxiv6HqrFzzdPjWTB-Wt0+dJV=w+h5fQyrT4x4OpTP6Kxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <610D90C8-3BB0-495A-9795-2B212B16A46C@christopherwilkinson.eu>

Good afternoon:

Well, a possible solution to this issue, might be to ask Educause to move .EDU to .EDU.US (where it belongs).

That might liberate .EDU as a new 'community' gTLD. Evidently with strict registration requirements. 
However, since most of the potential registrants have already got their domains in <*.ac.ccTLD>  or equivalent, I rather doubt that a <.EDU> gTLD would be economically viable.
In any event, the evidence is that the promotors of new gTLDs are not very interested in restrictive registration requirements, the paraphernalia of Public Interest Committees and Policy Advisory Boards notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, for the purposes of this 'IGC' List, may I say that there are a number of far more important issues relating to the globalisation of ICANN and IANA.
So, apart from responding to Kwasi's original question, which has been done, most of this discussion has been a red-herring.

Apologies in advance, to those concerned

CW





On 22 Mar 2014, at 15:09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From daniel at digsys.bg  Sat Mar 22 10:54:27 2014
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:54:27 +0800
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <610D90C8-3BB0-495A-9795-2B212B16A46C@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com> <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info> <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com> <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com> <532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxiv6HqrFzzdPjWTB-Wt0+dJV=w+h5fQyrT4x4OpTP6Kxg@mail.gmail.com> <610D90C8-3BB0-495A-9795-2B212B16A46C@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <E6DD7C27-95E9-4517-8011-2EB6575BED97@digsys.bg>


On 22.03.2014, at 22:42, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Good afternoon:
> 
> Well, a possible solution to this issue, might be to ask Educause to move .EDU to .EDU.US (where it belongs).
> 

This will not happen voluntarily, no matter how much Educause, ICANN or anyone else supports the case.

At least, that means that all existing URLs, e-mail addresses etc — anything that uses a domain name under .EDU will have to be changed on each and every possible location on Internet, including archives etc where it might be found.

It is more or less the same, as asking .DE be moved to DE.EU, because let’s face it, Germans do support the EU idea, don’t they? :-)

By the way, ICANN should fiercely oppose any such idea, because it undermines the “stability and security of the Internet”.

Daniel


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu  Sat Mar 22 12:37:12 2014
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:37:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <E6DD7C27-95E9-4517-8011-2EB6575BED97@digsys.bg>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com> <532C765C.3020608@afilias.info> <4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com> <CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com> <532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxiv6HqrFzzdPjWTB-Wt0+dJV=w+h5fQyrT4x4OpTP6Kxg@mail.gmail.com> <610D90C8-3BB0-495A-9795-2B212B16A46C@christopherwilkinson.eu> <E6DD7C27-95E9-4517-8011-2EB6575BED97@digsys.bg>
Message-ID: <1253BAB5-2AE1-458D-83BD-830E57AB072A@christopherwilkinson.eu>

QED - CW


On 22 Mar 2014, at 15:54, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

> 
> On 22.03.2014, at 22:42, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> 
>> Good afternoon:
>> 
>> Well, a possible solution to this issue, might be to ask Educause to move .EDU to .EDU.US (where it belongs).
>> 
> 
> This will not happen voluntarily, no matter how much Educause, ICANN or anyone else supports the case.
> 
> At least, that means that all existing URLs, e-mail addresses etc — anything that uses a domain name under .EDU will have to be changed on each and every possible location on Internet, including archives etc where it might be found.
> 
> It is more or less the same, as asking .DE be moved to DE.EU, because let’s face it, Germans do support the EU idea, don’t they? :-)
> 
> By the way, ICANN should fiercely oppose any such idea, because it undermines the “stability and security of the Internet”.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 13:00:13 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:00:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>

I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".

 

It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars of
multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US
Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as a
replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long histories
of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely
understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in
undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own narrow
economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the Internet).

 

http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comcasts-r
eal-life-house-of-cards-238904

 

InfoWorld Home <http://www.infoworld.com/>  / Notes from the Field
<http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
distortion, control: Comcast's... 

 <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely

March 21, 2014

Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'

The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details of
Comcast's power-hungry moves

By Robert X. Cringely
<http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
<http://www.infoworld.com/> 

Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in his
forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net neutrality
delusion
<http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-fight-f
air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the FCC
even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers instead of
the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete double-talk seems
to the standard for the Internet provider business these days.

Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking, slavering,
rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this consumer-crippling
legislation to topple our competitive choices like Godzilla strolling
through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure, there are tinfoil hats
preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but maybe the wingnuts are on to
something, even if they're starting out from pothead premises.

The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move to
devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be superhappy
about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the Deutsche Bank Media,
Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier this month in the highly
industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and enthused that the $45 billion
merger will put all of us in happy-happy land.

Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set to
service about two-thirds of the American population with both Internet and
entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have an actual,
practical choice?

Comcast spreads it tentacles
Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two months, and
recently leaked information on his compensation package shows that he stands
to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to the tune of
about $80 million
<http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How could
he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it loony to
suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this guy a key to the
executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have to write a
resignation letter right this minute with ink made from rectal blood and
salty tears.

The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With Net laws
castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to bully content
providers and control what you can and can't access on what amounts to its
Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sounds like he's
complaining about this trend -- never mind he's already validated it.
Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a month
ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! Its service
quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint this as a big win
for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as dumb as a bag of
hammers.

Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.

 

And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly funded with
appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and with clear
boundaries between public interests and private interests guarded with
varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts of interest and
suborning of public officials and public policy processes.  What isn't made
clear in the overwhelming forces and banshee howling of support for MSism is
that at its heart it is an attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as
corrupted US telecom policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the
world.

 

And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this what
you want for Global Internet Governance?

 

M

 

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of McTim
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
To: Michel Gauthier
Cc: 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

 

 

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:

If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then quoting a
page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do better than that, as
one is related to research and the Comcast partnership is about IETF
meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself doesn't do research in the way
that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  ISOC does surveys mainly and
recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.

If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please state
that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.

 

I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting real,
tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent lists or fora
where real infuencing strategies are observable. 

 

 

So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support of
the other MGs snide insinuations.

 

 


To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club 

 

 

This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they do
research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.

 

 

of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: "On
August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will
release additional details about these poisoning attacks. "

 

 

another tangental red-herring.

 


CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and corporations
interested in their market, what is my focussed area. 

 

 

This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet issues"

 

My question to you still stands.

 

 

How would you like the IETF to be funded??

 

rgds,

 

McTim

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/eef43305/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/eef43305/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 22 13:19:36 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:49:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <144eace0088.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Widely understood by you and who else?

And does whoever it is know routing a. Doc peering much?


On 22 March 2014 10:31:51 pm "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
>
>
>
> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars of
> multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US
> Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as a
> replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long histories
> of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely
> understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in
> undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own narrow
> economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>
>
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comcasts-r
> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
>
>
>
> InfoWorld Home <http://www.infoworld.com/>  / Notes from the Field
> <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
> distortion, control: Comcast's...
>  <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
>
> March 21, 2014
>
> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
>
> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details of
> Comcast's power-hungry moves
>
> By Robert X. Cringely
> <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
> <http://www.infoworld.com/>
> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in his
> forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net neutrality
> delusion
> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-fight-f
> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the FCC
> even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers instead of
> the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete double-talk seems
> to the standard for the Internet provider business these days.
>
> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking, slavering,
> rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this consumer-crippling
> legislation to topple our competitive choices like Godzilla strolling
> through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure, there are tinfoil hats
> preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but maybe the wingnuts are on to
> something, even if they're starting out from pothead premises.
>
> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move to
> devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be superhappy
> about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the Deutsche Bank Media,
> Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier this month in the highly
> industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and enthused that the $45 billion
> merger will put all of us in happy-happy land.
>
> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set to
> service about two-thirds of the American population with both Internet and
> entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have an actual,
> practical choice?
>
> Comcast spreads it tentacles
> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two months, and
> recently leaked information on his compensation package shows that he stands
> to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to the tune of
> about $80 million
> <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How could
> he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it loony to
> suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this guy a key to the
> executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have to write a
> resignation letter right this minute with ink made from rectal blood and
> salty tears.
>
> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With Net laws
> castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to bully content
> providers and control what you can and can't access on what amounts to its
> Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sounds like he's
> complaining about this trend -- never mind he's already validated it.
> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a month
> ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! Its service
> quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint this as a big win
> for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as dumb as a bag of
> hammers.
>
> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
>
>
>
> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly funded with
> appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and with clear
> boundaries between public interests and private interests guarded with
> varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts of interest and
> suborning of public officials and public policy processes.  What isn't made
> clear in the overwhelming forces and banshee howling of support for MSism is
> that at its heart it is an attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as
> corrupted US telecom policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the
> world.
>
>
>
> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this what
> you want for Global Internet Governance?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
> Of McTim
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
> To: Michel Gauthier
> Cc: 1Net List
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>
> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>
> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then quoting a
> page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do better than that, as
> one is related to research and the Comcast partnership is about IETF
> meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself doesn't do research in the way
> that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  ISOC does surveys mainly and
> recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
>
> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please state
> that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
>
>
>
> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting real,
> tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent lists or fora
> where real infuencing strategies are observable.
>
>
>
>
> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support of
> the other MGs snide insinuations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
>
>
>
>
> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they do
> research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
>
>
>
>
>
> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
> https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: "On
> August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will
> release additional details about these poisoning attacks. "
>
>
>
>
>
> another tangental red-herring.
>
>
>
>
> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and corporations
> interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
>
>
>
>
> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet issues"
>
>
>
> My question to you still stands.
>
>
>
>
>
> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>
>
>
> rgds,
>
>
>
> McTim
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/0fdabd2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/0fdabd2c/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar 22 13:49:22 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:49:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <610D90C8-3BB0-495A-9795-2B212B16A46C@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJhHpNsyJuLGctpmxJhGGvf41w9jKQsXgRfwJF7ZeYx_wCmcng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiCjZnHDa6cFqQN+d=g=b4LXmDZyo8bn-XcVbGT6ekHBAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEhPqwr8xbRNqLkdFeVE8cVFhwYKtReiaqMXta_d-Ew-qUDyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<532C765C.3020608@afilias.info>
	<4mrX7XqvjVLTFAq7@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<CAJhHpNtchqK8OdEPRq=LN0ByNa5vJ1i_t4MR1KObh+tGQygPug@mail.gmail.com>
	<532D82EF.1070708@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxiv6HqrFzzdPjWTB-Wt0+dJV=w+h5fQyrT4x4OpTP6Kxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<610D90C8-3BB0-495A-9795-2B212B16A46C@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwr2C9oRx+F7bfynhmgxmq8+iWWWW3i1B2aoLnmGfEfzZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 22/03/2014, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> Good afternoon:
>

> Meanwhile, for the purposes of this 'IGC' List, may I say that there are a
> number of far more important issues relating to the globalisation of ICANN
> and IANA.

So the list should only discuss globalization of ICANN and the NTIA statement?

-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Mar 22 14:50:45 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 19:50:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.ree
 dsmith.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <E1WRQxU-0002TW-Rw@igcaucus.org>

At 18:29 22/03/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>your accusations regarding IETF, ISOC and the multistakeholder 
>organizations are quite outrageous and completely unsupported.

Dear Gregory,
I understand you dislke Micahel's diagnosis but this is exactly what 
one can decide to read in RFC 3869 and RFC 6852 (the amount is there 
qualified as a "huge bounty"). Anyway this has no importance. The 
truth in this case is that it is what the majority of the world 
thinks (right or not) and that it is the situation we have to cope 
with. You (men of speech) with your words, us (VGN Managers) with our 
acts and decisions.

>I’m fairly confident that no matter what anyone does, says, or 
>shows, you will stick to this worldview.  Since it would be a waste 
>of time to crawl into the ditch with you and argue these points,

Yes. I know that as a lawyer this is your admirable job, to defend 
people. But in this case the task is not to defend anyone but to 
protect the whole multitude from hurting misunderstandings. Be sure, 
and this is not a good news, but it is the reality, that it will take 
time now before a foreign informant accepts to put his life at stake 
to inform the CIA or the NSA of something dangerous for you, or a 
country to trust US President's "evidences", or a non-US user to 
believe in the necessity of an ICANN single authoritative root file.

>I will install award you the first, inaugural “Tin Foil Beret” 
>award.  As you can tell from the name, I didn’t expect that you 
>would be the first winner, but as a resident of a quasi-Francophone 
>country, you’re more than qualified on style as well as substance.

I am afraid this is ad personam and no more ad hominem. I am not sure 
of the reason why you allude to Francophones?
jfc 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 16:25:44 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:25:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] DIGILEXIS statement to NTIA proposed transition of
 IANA functions
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8_BjG=kjk48HihuBca7JnfaFQdFi7_Zmzm14nD=cJ+Gg@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, with apologies for cross-posting (for those who will receive this more
than once), thanks. Mawaki
------

On March 14, the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced intent to end its oversight
role with the IANA functions and called for a transition process to begin
toward the full administration of those key Internet domain name functions
by the global multi-stakeholder community.

DIGILEXIS welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for these
functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to
further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global, inclusive of
all stakeholders and widely accepted as a result.

DIGILEXIS understands the multi-stakeholder policy making model as a
_sectoral_ policy making mechanism that is in alignment with democratic
values by being inclusive of all people concerned, bottom-up and consensus
driven. Because, as per the implementation of the model we have seen so
far, it mostly organizes the participants into groups referred to as
"stakeholders," it is even more critical to make sure the views and
concerns of citizens and Internet users around the world, who are not
organized into professional or particular interest groups, are taken into
consideration.

DIGILEXIS supports the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN
and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
proposal and wants to stress the need for a unified, stable, secure and
trust-worthy Internet, while still in keeping with openness and innovation
as we have known. It is also critical that its development retains the
need, and constantly improves on its ability, to help preserve and further
Civil Liberties for all Internet users around the globe.

>From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development afforded
by the Internet, DIGILEXIS urges the international community and the global
Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure
associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce economic
barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders, to the
extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.

Finally, DIGILEXIS expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA
functions will be further completed by carefully assessing the jurisdiction
to be applicable in the new institutional environment. This new legal
regime should have an international basis with a view to reducing costs and
putting the access and use of its apparatus within the reach of all
stakeholders across all regions of the world. Along the same line, suitable
and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms shall also be put
in place.

---end---

DIGILEXIS (www.digilexis.com) is a small yet multifaceted corporation with
consultancy, research and advocacy components. It is currently registered
in Cote d'Ivoire.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/a6bfbec2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Sat Mar 22 16:41:55 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:41:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
	<532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwr6VnVwT85NFpuo1z+aOPt+o-FyyOG6LBo4dvYtt8RUdg@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting debate.

I hope the co-co can help moderate the debate. Several uncivil words
have been thrown around targeting personalities, instead of tackling
the issue at hand.

Jefsey, how does RFC 3869 and RFC 6852 implicate Comcast and IETF?

Regards

On 22/03/2014, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting
> that the IETF are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If
> you're not suggesting that, then making that clear would be
> helpful I think.
>
> The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this
> kind of new multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think
> it mostly does come from large IT/networking companies. (But a
> substantial chunk comes from meeting participants via meeting
> fees.)
>
> It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But
> so what? That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other
> than individual people thank the sponsors now and then.
>
> Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of
> handling rough consensus would, could or should be used in any
> other context. Maybe some people have said or think that but
> the IETF hasn't said any such thing that I recall. So you're
> also conflating entirely separate things I think, and in an
> unfair manner.
>
> Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable
> treatment that I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being
> involved with the IETF. You can believe me or not on that, and
> either way you can audit all the mailing lists and (since the
> datatracker tool was developed) all the IESG comments on
> drafts as they become RFCs. I don't believe you will find even
> a dubious correlation, but I'd be interested if you did.
>
> IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.
>
> S.
>
> On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars
>> of
>> multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US
>> Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as
>> a
>> replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long
>> histories
>> of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely
>> understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in
>> undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own
>> narrow
>> economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comcasts-r
>> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
>>
>>
>>
>> InfoWorld Home <http://www.infoworld.com/>  / Notes from the Field
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
>> distortion, control: Comcast's...
>>
>>  <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
>>
>> March 21, 2014
>>
>> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
>>
>> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details of
>> Comcast's power-hungry moves
>>
>> By Robert X. Cringely
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/>
>>
>> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in
>> his
>> forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net neutrality
>> delusion
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-fight-f
>> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
>> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the FCC
>> even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers instead of
>> the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete double-talk
>> seems
>> to the standard for the Internet provider business these days.
>>
>> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking,
>> slavering,
>> rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this consumer-crippling
>> legislation to topple our competitive choices like Godzilla strolling
>> through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure, there are tinfoil hats
>> preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but maybe the wingnuts are on
>> to
>> something, even if they're starting out from pothead premises.
>>
>> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move to
>> devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be superhappy
>> about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the Deutsche Bank
>> Media,
>> Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier this month in the highly
>> industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and enthused that the $45 billion
>> merger will put all of us in happy-happy land.
>>
>> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
>> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set to
>> service about two-thirds of the American population with both Internet
>> and
>> entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have an actual,
>> practical choice?
>>
>> Comcast spreads it tentacles
>> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two months,
>> and
>> recently leaked information on his compensation package shows that he
>> stands
>> to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to the tune of
>> about $80 million
>> <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How
>> could
>> he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it loony to
>> suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this guy a key to
>> the
>> executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have to write a
>> resignation letter right this minute with ink made from rectal blood and
>> salty tears.
>>
>> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With Net
>> laws
>> castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to bully content
>> providers and control what you can and can't access on what amounts to
>> its
>> Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sounds like
>> he's
>> complaining about this trend -- never mind he's already validated it.
>> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a month
>> ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! Its
>> service
>> quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint this as a big
>> win
>> for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as dumb as a bag of
>> hammers.
>>
>> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly funded
>> with
>> appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and with clear
>> boundaries between public interests and private interests guarded with
>> varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts of interest and
>> suborning of public officials and public policy processes.  What isn't
>> made
>> clear in the overwhelming forces and banshee howling of support for MSism
>> is
>> that at its heart it is an attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as
>> corrupted US telecom policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on
>> the
>> world.
>>
>>
>>
>> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this
>> what
>> you want for Global Internet Governance?
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>> Behalf
>> Of McTim
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
>> To: Michel Gauthier
>> Cc: 1Net List
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>>
>> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then quoting
>> a
>> page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do better than that,
>> as
>> one is related to research and the Comcast partnership is about IETF
>> meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself doesn't do research in the
>> way
>> that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  ISOC does surveys mainly and
>> recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
>>
>> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please state
>> that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
>>
>>
>>
>> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting real,
>> tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent lists or
>> fora
>> where real infuencing strategies are observable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
>> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support of
>> the other MGs snide insinuations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they do
>> research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
>> https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: "On
>> August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
>> will
>> release additional details about these poisoning attacks. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> another tangental red-herring.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and
>> corporations
>> interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
>> issues"
>>
>>
>>
>> My question to you still stands.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>>
>>
>>
>> rgds,
>>
>>
>>
>> McTim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 22 16:46:59 2014
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 04:46:59 +0800
Subject: [governance] 1net Discuss Mailing List purpose (was: Re: [discuss]
 Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF  cosponsorship!?)
In-Reply-To: <AF0D675D-E42C-4F70-A830-38F0AD2FC952@oracle.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <201403221852.s2MIqDpr013419@aserp1020.oracle.com> <AF0D675D-E42C-4F70-A830-38F0AD2FC952@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <62BC5002-12A4-4353-8F56-4AC7B2546EF6@istaff.org>

On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Ok, I will join the chorus asking to be removed from this thread.  Is this initiated by some action of mine or the list administrator?

Joseph - 

Thanks for your note!  It is helpful from time to time to step back
and consider these mailing list threads with respect to our goals.
I am not a list administrator, but am quite willing to remind the
participants (at least on the 1net list) what we are here to accomplish... 

1net Mailing List Participants - 

 The 1net discussion forum is intended to be a neutral, focused 
 initiative working towards actionable collaborative solutions.

 Ergo, if anyone has a specific problem statement and proposed 
 solution with regard to any issues raised by the cosponsorship 
 announcement, feel free post the problem statement and your 
 proposed solution to the 1net list for collaborative discussion.

 If that is not your intention, I would personally suggest that you
 find another mailing list for your general ruminations on the topic.

 I would note that there is already a remarkable amount of work to be done 
 this year on existing problem statements and as such we will need to keep 
 quite focused if we actually wish to succeed in developing collaborative
 actionable solutions.

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 kstubbs at afilias.info  Sat Mar 22 16:56:22 2014
From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:56:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] 1net Discuss Mailing List purpose
In-Reply-To: <62BC5002-12A4-4353-8F56-4AC7B2546EF6@istaff.org>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <201403221852.s2MIqDpr013419@aserp1020.oracle.com> <AF0D675D-E42C-4F70-A830-38F0AD2FC952@oracle.com> <62BC5002-12A4-4353-8F56-4AC7B2546EF6@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <532DF8F6.3060909@afilias.info>

John

+1

Ken Stubbs
my views alone as well..

On 3/22/2014 4:46 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I will join the chorus asking to be removed from this thread.  Is this initiated by some action of mine or the list administrator?
> Joseph -
>
> Thanks for your note!  It is helpful from time to time to step back
> and consider these mailing list threads with respect to our goals.
> I am not a list administrator, but am quite willing to remind the
> participants (at least on the 1net list) what we are here to accomplish...
>
> 1net Mailing List Participants -
>
>   The 1net discussion forum is intended to be a neutral, focused
>   initiative working towards actionable collaborative solutions.
>
>   Ergo, if anyone has a specific problem statement and proposed
>   solution with regard to any issues raised by the cosponsorship
>   announcement, feel free post the problem statement and your
>   proposed solution to the 1net list for collaborative discussion.
>
>   If that is not your intention, I would personally suggest that you
>   find another mailing list for your general ruminations on the topic.
>
>   I would note that there is already a remarkable amount of work to be done
>   this year on existing problem statements and as such we will need to keep
>   quite focused if we actually wish to succeed in developing collaborative
>   actionable solutions.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>
>
>
>   
>
>


---
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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 17:47:50 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:47:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>

Tks Stephen,

 

Please note that my comments were meant for the larger audience of those
with an interest in how the Internet is and is to be managed/governed i.e.
all of those impacted by the Internet which by now includes most everyone in
the world.  It was only incidentally meant for those, including those most
active on this (and other IG related) lists, for whom no argument that
presents critical analyses or questions concerning this drive towards MSism
apparently can be countenanced.

 

What I said was:

 

It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars of
multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US
Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as a
replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long histories
of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely
understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in
undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own narrow
economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the Internet).

 

So far no one has questioned the truth of this statement.

 

"We" and here I mean all of those in the larger audience I'm referring to
above are being asked to accept this state of affairs unquestioningly.

 

Earlier I noted some highly questionable experiences with the MS process as
currently being operationalized through 1Net and elsewhere.  I received no
useful explanation or response.

 

Additionally I introduced a series of questions with respect to how various
"risks" associated with MSism might be handled given the significance that
is being given to MSism as the preferred mechanism for Internet (and other?)
governance arrangements. I received no explanation or response.

 

In this current interaction I noted what appeared to be at least the
potential for a significant conflict of interest in two of the primary
current mechanisms for MSism which as we know is being explicitly described
as a post-democratic governance mechanism for the Internet.  You have seen
the quality and content of the responses to my questions and comments in
this area.

 

I have made no accusations either explicit or implicit concerning the IETF
or ISOC.  I don't know enough about either of them to have any opinion in
these matters.  

 

However, those who do know rather more about the role that Comcast is
playing in the current communications policy and regulatory activities in
the US are raising warning flags to such an extent that one has little
alternative but to question the role that Comcast may be playing in the
quite parallel global Internet "governance" mechanisms as per the IETF and
ISOC. If nothing else there is the appearance of a conflict of interest and
given the other risks already pointed to with respect to MSism and Global
Internet Governance one surely must add this to the list i.e. is it safe to
proceed to a governance framework where there are no evident or explicit
boundaries between private sector activities and interests and the public
interest.

 

Of course, as I believe is the case for many on this list, there is no
belief that the Internet should be managed or governed in the public
interest (rather than as a concatenation of, or "consensus" among private
interests) then this question has no meaning.  However, one hopes that if
nothing else, the NetMundial meeting will clearly affirm that the
overwhelming priority of the peoples of the world is to have the Internet
governed in the public interest and with the principles for Internet
governance being based on this fundamental value. 

 

Best,

 

Mike

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:01 PM
To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

 

Hi Michael,

 

I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting that the IETF
are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If you're not suggesting that,
then making that clear would be helpful I think.

 

The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this kind of new
multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think it mostly does come from
large IT/networking companies. (But a substantial chunk comes from meeting
participants via meeting

fees.)

 

It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But so what?
That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other than individual
people thank the sponsors now and then.

 

Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of handling rough
consensus would, could or should be used in any other context. Maybe some
people have said or think that but the IETF hasn't said any such thing that
I recall. So you're also conflating entirely separate things I think, and in
an unfair manner.

 

Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable treatment that
I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being involved with the IETF. You
can believe me or not on that, and either way you can audit all the mailing
lists and (since the datatracker tool was developed) all the IESG comments
on drafts as they become RFCs. I don't believe you will find even a dubious
correlation, but I'd be interested if you did.

 

IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.

 

S.

 

On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".

> 

>  

> 

> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major 

> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted 

> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society 

> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the 

> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a 

> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the 

> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and 

> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests
(increasingly encompassing the Internet).

> 

>  

> 

>  <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc>
http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc

> asts-r

> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904

> 

>  

> 

> InfoWorld Home < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>  /
Notes from the Field 

> < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>
http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption, 

> distortion, control: Comcast's...

> 

>  < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely

> 

> March 21, 2014

> 

> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'

> 

> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details 

> of Comcast's power-hungry moves

> 

> By Robert X. Cringely

> < <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>
http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld 

> < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>

> 

> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in 

> his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net 

> neutrality delusion 

> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-f

> ight-f

> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the 

> FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers 

> instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete 

> double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business these
days.

> 

> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking, 

> slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this 

> consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like 

> Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure, 

> there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but 

> maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out from
pothead premises.

> 

> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move 

> to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be 

> superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the 

> Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier this 

> month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and 

> enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in happy-happy
land.

> 

> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into 

> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set 

> to service about two-thirds of the American population with both 

> Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have 

> an actual, practical choice?

> 

> Comcast spreads it tentacles

> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two months, 

> and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows that 

> he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to 

> the tune of about $80 million 

> < <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>
http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How 

> could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it 

> loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this guy 

> a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have 

> to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from 

> rectal blood and salty tears.

> 

> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With 

> Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to 

> bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on 

> what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed 

> Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind he's
already validated it.

> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a 

> month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! 

> Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint 

> this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as 

> dumb as a bag of hammers.

> 

> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.

> 

>  

> 

> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly 

> funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and 

> with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests 

> guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts 

> of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy 

> processes.  What isn't made clear in the overwhelming forces and 

> banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an 

> attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom 

> policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.

> 

>  

> 

> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this 

> what you want for Global Internet Governance?

> 

>  

> 

> M

> 

>  

> 

> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On 

> Behalf Of McTim

> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM

> To: Michel Gauthier

> Cc: 1Net List

> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <
<mailto:mg at telepresse.com> mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> 

> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:

> 

> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then 

> quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do 

> better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast 

> partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself 

> doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  

> ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.

> 

> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please 

> state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.

> 

>  

> 

> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting 

> real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent 

> lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing 

> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support 

> of the other MGs snide insinuations.

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> 

> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they 

> do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its 

>  <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy>
https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: 

> "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky 

> < <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will release additional details
about these poisoning attacks. "

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> another tangental red-herring.

> 

>  

> 

> 

> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and 

> corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
issues"

> 

>  

> 

> My question to you still stands.

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> How would you like the IETF to be funded??

> 

>  

> 

> rgds,

> 

>  

> 

> McTim

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140322/33e4cfda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 19:18:28 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:18:28 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>

To be clear Stephen,

As meetings among professionals to discuss professional/technical matters,
it makes (or should make) no difference to anyone who provides the funding.

However, as bodies which are being identified as core mechanisms in the
global governance of the Internet (and as central to the desired global
stampede towards MSism) it matters a very great deal.  

Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:28 PM
To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?


Hi Michael,

I don't agree that there's an inherent conflict of interest involved in the
IETF being sponsored by large companies that operate in IT/networking.
That's in large part due to how the IETF is setup and managed openly and
transparently etc. Again, if someone wants to go check it out, I think all
the sponsorships are public and I know all the mailing lists are there and
all the IETF nomcom memberships and selections etc etc. To the best of my
knowledge you will not find any such conflict is real.

And while I have no axe to grind for Comcast, I did in the past work for
another large company in that space and I really would be surprised if one
of those is that much worse or better than another. I think they all have
their good and less good aspects, as do many large organisations, such as
governments.

I also think your broader point about MSism not being in your view the right
model does not require you to try to argue that the IETF's funding creates
such a conflict. Especially since the IETF doesn't have such a conflict. You
would do far better to argue that the IETF setup is pretty good but doesn't
generalise as claimed I figure.

Oh, and if you have suggestions as to how the IETF could get other sources
of funding, I know for sure that the ISOC folks who chase that money to
support the IETF and RFC editor would just love to hear from you:-)

S.


On 03/22/2014 09:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Tks Stephen,
> 
>  
> 
> Please note that my comments were meant for the larger audience of 
> those with an interest in how the Internet is and is to be
managed/governed i.e.
> all of those impacted by the Internet which by now includes most 
> everyone in the world.  It was only incidentally meant for those, 
> including those most active on this (and other IG related) lists, for 
> whom no argument that presents critical analyses or questions 
> concerning this drive towards MSism apparently can be countenanced.
> 
>  
> 
> What I said was:
> 
>  
> 
> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major 
> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted 
> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society 
> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the 
> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a 
> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the 
> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and 
> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests
(increasingly encompassing the Internet).
> 
>  
> 
> So far no one has questioned the truth of this statement.
> 
>  
> 
> "We" and here I mean all of those in the larger audience I'm referring 
> to above are being asked to accept this state of affairs unquestioningly.
> 
>  
> 
> Earlier I noted some highly questionable experiences with the MS 
> process as currently being operationalized through 1Net and elsewhere.  
> I received no useful explanation or response.
> 
>  
> 
> Additionally I introduced a series of questions with respect to how 
> various "risks" associated with MSism might be handled given the 
> significance that is being given to MSism as the preferred mechanism 
> for Internet (and other?) governance arrangements. I received no
explanation or response.
> 
>  
> 
> In this current interaction I noted what appeared to be at least the 
> potential for a significant conflict of interest in two of the primary 
> current mechanisms for MSism which as we know is being explicitly 
> described as a post-democratic governance mechanism for the Internet.  
> You have seen the quality and content of the responses to my questions 
> and comments in this area.
> 
>  
> 
> I have made no accusations either explicit or implicit concerning the 
> IETF or ISOC.  I don't know enough about either of them to have any 
> opinion in these matters.
> 
>  
> 
> However, those who do know rather more about the role that Comcast is 
> playing in the current communications policy and regulatory activities 
> in the US are raising warning flags to such an extent that one has 
> little alternative but to question the role that Comcast may be 
> playing in the quite parallel global Internet "governance" mechanisms 
> as per the IETF and ISOC. If nothing else there is the appearance of a 
> conflict of interest and given the other risks already pointed to with 
> respect to MSism and Global Internet Governance one surely must add 
> this to the list i.e. is it safe to proceed to a governance framework 
> where there are no evident or explicit boundaries between private 
> sector activities and interests and the public interest.
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, as I believe is the case for many on this list, there is no 
> belief that the Internet should be managed or governed in the public 
> interest (rather than as a concatenation of, or "consensus" among 
> private
> interests) then this question has no meaning.  However, one hopes that 
> if nothing else, the NetMundial meeting will clearly affirm that the 
> overwhelming priority of the peoples of the world is to have the 
> Internet governed in the public interest and with the principles for 
> Internet governance being based on this fundamental value.
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
> Mike
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:01 PM
> To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
> Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
>  
> 
> I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting that the 
> IETF are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If you're not 
> suggesting that, then making that clear would be helpful I think.
> 
>  
> 
> The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this kind of 
> new multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think it mostly does 
> come from large IT/networking companies. (But a substantial chunk 
> comes from meeting participants via meeting
> 
> fees.)
> 
>  
> 
> It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But so what?
> That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other than 
> individual people thank the sponsors now and then.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of handling 
> rough consensus would, could or should be used in any other context. 
> Maybe some people have said or think that but the IETF hasn't said any 
> such thing that I recall. So you're also conflating entirely separate 
> things I think, and in an unfair manner.
> 
>  
> 
> Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable 
> treatment that I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being involved 
> with the IETF. You can believe me or not on that, and either way you 
> can audit all the mailing lists and (since the datatracker tool was 
> developed) all the IESG comments on drafts as they become RFCs. I 
> don't believe you will find even a dubious correlation, but I'd be
interested if you did.
> 
>  
> 
> IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.
> 
>  
> 
> S.
> 
>  
> 
> On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
> 
>> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
> 
>> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
> 
>> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
> 
>> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
> 
>> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
> 
>> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
> 
>> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic 
>> self-interests
> (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-co
>> mc>
> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc
> 
>> asts-r
> 
>> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> InfoWorld Home < <http://www.infoworld.com/> 
>> http://www.infoworld.com/>  /
> Notes from the Field
> 
>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>
> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
> 
>> distortion, control: Comcast's...
> 
>>
> 
>>  < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
> 
>>
> 
>> March 21, 2014
> 
>>
> 
>> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
> 
>>
> 
>> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details
> 
>> of Comcast's power-hungry moves
> 
>>
> 
>> By Robert X. Cringely
> 
>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>
> http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
> 
>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>
> 
>>
> 
>> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein 
>> in
> 
>> his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net
> 
>> neutrality delusion
> 
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-
>> f
> 
>> ight-f
> 
>> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom 
>> air-access-237815> Wheeler
> 
>> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the
> 
>> FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers
> 
>> instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete
> 
>> double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business 
>> these
> days.
> 
>>
> 
>> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking,
> 
>> slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this
> 
>> consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like
> 
>> Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure,
> 
>> there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but
> 
>> maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out 
>> from
> pothead premises.
> 
>>
> 
>> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move
> 
>> to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be
> 
>> superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the
> 
>> Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier 
>> this
> 
>> month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and
> 
>> enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in 
>> happy-happy
> land.
> 
>>
> 
>> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
> 
>> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set
> 
>> to service about two-thirds of the American population with both
> 
>> Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have
> 
>> an actual, practical choice?
> 
>>
> 
>> Comcast spreads it tentacles
> 
>> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two 
>> months,
> 
>> and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows 
>> that
> 
>> he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to
> 
>> the tune of about $80 million
> 
>> < <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>
> http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How
> 
>> could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it
> 
>> loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this 
>> guy
> 
>> a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have
> 
>> to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from
> 
>> rectal blood and salty tears.
> 
>>
> 
>> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With
> 
>> Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to
> 
>> bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on
> 
>> what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed
> 
>> Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind 
>> he's
> already validated it.
> 
>> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a
> 
>> month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! 
> 
>> Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast 
>> paint
> 
>> this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as
> 
>> dumb as a bag of hammers.
> 
>>
> 
>> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly
> 
>> funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability 
>> and
> 
>> with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests
> 
>> guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts
> 
>> of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy
> 
>> processes.  What isn't made clear in the overwhelming forces and
> 
>> banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an
> 
>> attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom
> 
>> policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this
> 
>> what you want for Global Internet Governance?
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> M
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> 
>> Behalf Of McTim
> 
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
> 
>> To: Michel Gauthier
> 
>> Cc: 1Net List
> 
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <
> <mailto:mg at telepresse.com> mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then
> 
>> quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do
> 
>> better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast
> 
>> partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself
> 
>> doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  
> 
>> ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
> 
>>
> 
>> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please
> 
>> state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting
> 
>> real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent
> 
>> lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
> 
>> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in 
>> support
> 
>> of the other MGs snide insinuations.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they
> 
>> do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
> 
>>  <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy>
> https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: 
> 
>> "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky
> 
>> < <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
> http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will release additional 
> details about these poisoning attacks. "
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> another tangental red-herring.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and
> 
>> corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
> issues"
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> My question to you still stands.
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> rgds,
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>> McTim
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> _______________________________________________
> 
>> discuss mailing list
> 
>>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org
> 
>>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
> http://1net-mail.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Mar 22 20:20:54 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:20:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>,<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bb359090bbfd4ab288491452a13d0898@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Ok Michael,

I will take the bait; I see no problem from a global Internet governance view.

It is normal/acceptable practice for technical standards bodies to - meet.

Someone/some firms helping cover those costs is also - 100% normal.

One might surmise a firm agreeing to contribute to the costs - has an interest in the topics under discussion - or at least a couple of them.

And this is news? Somehow controversial?

Finally,and I hate being put in the position to have to defend the - dominant (~30% market share) cable provider in the US, but it's not Comcast's fault that the FCC implemented policies without the requisite legislative authority, according to the courts not once but multiple times. One might blame the FCC, or Congress, but the winning side in repeated court actions usually is seen as having been the aggrieved party. Which in this case, cough, more often than not was Comcast.

As Stephen noted, noone is suggesting Comcast are angels; but the leap from Comcast attempting to garner (perhaps) some goodwill by kicking into cover some of the costs to cries of foul play is a pretty long leap. 

Or maybe, as a major broadband provider, Comcast is just acting like any number of other companies with interest in standards processes and supporting the process.

In sum, we may as well be 'shocked' to learn firms pay big $$ to hang at W3C: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees-2013; or...well hopefully you get the point. 

If you want an open and interoperable network of networks, and/or a world wide web, there's costs involved which do not come out of anyone's taxes or from foundations. 

Lots and lots of volunteers contribute too; but they also appreciate having a 'free' coffee during a break I suspect.

Lee

PS: Actual tactics to try to cook/bias IETF output/RFC's...that would be a whole other thing. And given the extreme degree of transparency always practiced by IETF, a much higher degree of difficulty.  Not that it has not been tried, but buying folks a coffee or whatever, would not be the way to go about that. ; )


________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:18 PM
To: 'Stephen Farrell'; 'McTim'
Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

To be clear Stephen,

As meetings among professionals to discuss professional/technical matters,
it makes (or should make) no difference to anyone who provides the funding.

However, as bodies which are being identified as core mechanisms in the
global governance of the Internet (and as central to the desired global
stampede towards MSism) it matters a very great deal.

Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:28 PM
To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?


Hi Michael,

I don't agree that there's an inherent conflict of interest involved in the
IETF being sponsored by large companies that operate in IT/networking.
That's in large part due to how the IETF is setup and managed openly and
transparently etc. Again, if someone wants to go check it out, I think all
the sponsorships are public and I know all the mailing lists are there and
all the IETF nomcom memberships and selections etc etc. To the best of my
knowledge you will not find any such conflict is real.

And while I have no axe to grind for Comcast, I did in the past work for
another large company in that space and I really would be surprised if one
of those is that much worse or better than another. I think they all have
their good and less good aspects, as do many large organisations, such as
governments.

I also think your broader point about MSism not being in your view the right
model does not require you to try to argue that the IETF's funding creates
such a conflict. Especially since the IETF doesn't have such a conflict. You
would do far better to argue that the IETF setup is pretty good but doesn't
generalise as claimed I figure.

Oh, and if you have suggestions as to how the IETF could get other sources
of funding, I know for sure that the ISOC folks who chase that money to
support the IETF and RFC editor would just love to hear from you:-)

S.


On 03/22/2014 09:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Tks Stephen,
>
>
>
> Please note that my comments were meant for the larger audience of
> those with an interest in how the Internet is and is to be
managed/governed i.e.
> all of those impacted by the Internet which by now includes most
> everyone in the world.  It was only incidentally meant for those,
> including those most active on this (and other IG related) lists, for
> whom no argument that presents critical analyses or questions
> concerning this drive towards MSism apparently can be countenanced.
>
>
>
> What I said was:
>
>
>
> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests
(increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>
>
>
> So far no one has questioned the truth of this statement.
>
>
>
> "We" and here I mean all of those in the larger audience I'm referring
> to above are being asked to accept this state of affairs unquestioningly.
>
>
>
> Earlier I noted some highly questionable experiences with the MS
> process as currently being operationalized through 1Net and elsewhere.
> I received no useful explanation or response.
>
>
>
> Additionally I introduced a series of questions with respect to how
> various "risks" associated with MSism might be handled given the
> significance that is being given to MSism as the preferred mechanism
> for Internet (and other?) governance arrangements. I received no
explanation or response.
>
>
>
> In this current interaction I noted what appeared to be at least the
> potential for a significant conflict of interest in two of the primary
> current mechanisms for MSism which as we know is being explicitly
> described as a post-democratic governance mechanism for the Internet.
> You have seen the quality and content of the responses to my questions
> and comments in this area.
>
>
>
> I have made no accusations either explicit or implicit concerning the
> IETF or ISOC.  I don't know enough about either of them to have any
> opinion in these matters.
>
>
>
> However, those who do know rather more about the role that Comcast is
> playing in the current communications policy and regulatory activities
> in the US are raising warning flags to such an extent that one has
> little alternative but to question the role that Comcast may be
> playing in the quite parallel global Internet "governance" mechanisms
> as per the IETF and ISOC. If nothing else there is the appearance of a
> conflict of interest and given the other risks already pointed to with
> respect to MSism and Global Internet Governance one surely must add
> this to the list i.e. is it safe to proceed to a governance framework
> where there are no evident or explicit boundaries between private
> sector activities and interests and the public interest.
>
>
>
> Of course, as I believe is the case for many on this list, there is no
> belief that the Internet should be managed or governed in the public
> interest (rather than as a concatenation of, or "consensus" among
> private
> interests) then this question has no meaning.  However, one hopes that
> if nothing else, the NetMundial meeting will clearly affirm that the
> overwhelming priority of the peoples of the world is to have the
> Internet governed in the public interest and with the principles for
> Internet governance being based on this fundamental value.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:01 PM
> To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
> Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
> I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting that the
> IETF are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If you're not
> suggesting that, then making that clear would be helpful I think.
>
>
>
> The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this kind of
> new multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think it mostly does
> come from large IT/networking companies. (But a substantial chunk
> comes from meeting participants via meeting
>
> fees.)
>
>
>
> It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But so what?
> That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other than
> individual people thank the sponsors now and then.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of handling
> rough consensus would, could or should be used in any other context.
> Maybe some people have said or think that but the IETF hasn't said any
> such thing that I recall. So you're also conflating entirely separate
> things I think, and in an unfair manner.
>
>
>
> Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable
> treatment that I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being involved
> with the IETF. You can believe me or not on that, and either way you
> can audit all the mailing lists and (since the datatracker tool was
> developed) all the IESG comments on drafts as they become RFCs. I
> don't believe you will find even a dubious correlation, but I'd be
interested if you did.
>
>
>
> IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.
>
>
>
> S.
>
>
>
> On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
>
>> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
>
>> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
>
>> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
>
>> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
>
>> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
>
>> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
>
>> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic
>> self-interests
> (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-co
>> mc>
> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc
>
>> asts-r
>
>> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> InfoWorld Home < <http://www.infoworld.com/>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/>  /
> Notes from the Field
>
>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>
> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
>
>> distortion, control: Comcast's...
>
>>
>
>>  < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
>
>>
>
>> March 21, 2014
>
>>
>
>> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
>
>>
>
>> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details
>
>> of Comcast's power-hungry moves
>
>>
>
>> By Robert X. Cringely
>
>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>
> http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
>
>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>
>
>>
>
>> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein
>> in
>
>> his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net
>
>> neutrality delusion
>
>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-
>> f
>
>> ight-f
>
>> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom
>> air-access-237815> Wheeler
>
>> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the
>
>> FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers
>
>> instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete
>
>> double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business
>> these
> days.
>
>>
>
>> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking,
>
>> slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this
>
>> consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like
>
>> Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure,
>
>> there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but
>
>> maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out
>> from
> pothead premises.
>
>>
>
>> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move
>
>> to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be
>
>> superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the
>
>> Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier
>> this
>
>> month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and
>
>> enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in
>> happy-happy
> land.
>
>>
>
>> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
>
>> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set
>
>> to service about two-thirds of the American population with both
>
>> Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have
>
>> an actual, practical choice?
>
>>
>
>> Comcast spreads it tentacles
>
>> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two
>> months,
>
>> and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows
>> that
>
>> he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to
>
>> the tune of about $80 million
>
>> < <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>
> http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How
>
>> could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it
>
>> loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this
>> guy
>
>> a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have
>
>> to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from
>
>> rectal blood and salty tears.
>
>>
>
>> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With
>
>> Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to
>
>> bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on
>
>> what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed
>
>> Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind
>> he's
> already validated it.
>
>> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a
>
>> month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto!
>
>> Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast
>> paint
>
>> this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as
>
>> dumb as a bag of hammers.
>
>>
>
>> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly
>
>> funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability
>> and
>
>> with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests
>
>> guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts
>
>> of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy
>
>> processes.  What isn't made clear in the overwhelming forces and
>
>> banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an
>
>> attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom
>
>> policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this
>
>> what you want for Global Internet Governance?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> M
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>
>> Behalf Of McTim
>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
>
>> To: Michel Gauthier
>
>> Cc: 1Net List
>
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <
> <mailto:mg at telepresse.com> mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>
>>
>
>> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then
>
>> quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do
>
>> better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast
>
>> partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself
>
>> doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.
>
>> ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
>
>>
>
>> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please
>
>> state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting
>
>> real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent
>
>> lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
>
>> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in
>> support
>
>> of the other MGs snide insinuations.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they
>
>> do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
>
>>  <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy>
> https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states:
>
>> "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky
>
>> < <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
> http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will release additional
> details about these poisoning attacks. "
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> another tangental red-herring.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and
>
>> corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
> issues"
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> My question to you still stands.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> rgds,
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> McTim
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> discuss mailing list
>
>>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org
>
>>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
> http://1net-mail.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Mar 22 20:03:19 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 01:03:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1WRWKO-0004Uq-DA@igcaucus.org>

Dear Michael and Stephen,

I think that the issues you address are documented enough by RFC 3869 
and 6852 as topics, and by the 53 years old Farewell address as 
principles, i.e. what Fadi only hope to be discussed in Sao Paulo. 
People can read these three documents the way they want. They can 
dispute as much as they want: they are here, they are well written, 
they concern our today responsibility and the people who wrote them 
were in charge and certainly had good reasons to write them.

All we know, is that if *we* do not address these reasons in a 
consensual manner, we will jointly fail.

jfc

At 00:18 23/03/2014, michael gurstein wrote:
>As meetings among professionals to discuss professional/technical matters,
>it makes (or should make) no difference to anyone who provides the funding.
>
>However, as bodies which are being identified as core mechanisms in the
>global governance of the Internet (and as central to the desired global
>stampede towards MSism) it matters a very great deal.
>
>Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
>standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
>or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
>key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
>Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:28 PM
>To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
>Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>I don't agree that there's an inherent conflict of interest involved in the
>IETF being sponsored by large companies that operate in IT/networking.
>That's in large part due to how the IETF is setup and managed openly and
>transparently etc. Again, if someone wants to go check it out, I think all
>the sponsorships are public and I know all the mailing lists are there and
>all the IETF nomcom memberships and selections etc etc. To the best of my
>knowledge you will not find any such conflict is real.
>
>And while I have no axe to grind for Comcast, I did in the past work for
>another large company in that space and I really would be surprised if one
>of those is that much worse or better than another. I think they all have
>their good and less good aspects, as do many large organisations, such as
>governments.
>
>I also think your broader point about MSism not being in your view the right
>model does not require you to try to argue that the IETF's funding creates
>such a conflict. Especially since the IETF doesn't have such a conflict. You
>would do far better to argue that the IETF setup is pretty good but doesn't
>generalise as claimed I figure.
>
>Oh, and if you have suggestions as to how the IETF could get other sources
>of funding, I know for sure that the ISOC folks who chase that money to
>support the IETF and RFC editor would just love to hear from you:-)
>
>S.
>
>
>On 03/22/2014 09:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> > Tks Stephen,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that my comments were meant for the larger audience of
> > those with an interest in how the Internet is and is to be
>managed/governed i.e.
> > all of those impacted by the Internet which by now includes most
> > everyone in the world.  It was only incidentally meant for those,
> > including those most active on this (and other IG related) lists, for
> > whom no argument that presents critical analyses or questions
> > concerning this drive towards MSism apparently can be countenanced.
> >
> >
> >
> > What I said was:
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
> > pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
> > by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
> > communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
> > Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
> > major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
> > least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
> > regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests
>(increasingly encompassing the Internet).
> >
> >
> >
> > So far no one has questioned the truth of this statement.
> >
> >
> >
> > "We" and here I mean all of those in the larger audience I'm referring
> > to above are being asked to accept this state of affairs unquestioningly.
> >
> >
> >
> > Earlier I noted some highly questionable experiences with the MS
> > process as currently being operationalized through 1Net and elsewhere.
> > I received no useful explanation or response.
> >
> >
> >
> > Additionally I introduced a series of questions with respect to how
> > various "risks" associated with MSism might be handled given the
> > significance that is being given to MSism as the preferred mechanism
> > for Internet (and other?) governance arrangements. I received no
>explanation or response.
> >
> >
> >
> > In this current interaction I noted what appeared to be at least the
> > potential for a significant conflict of interest in two of the primary
> > current mechanisms for MSism which as we know is being explicitly
> > described as a post-democratic governance mechanism for the Internet.
> > You have seen the quality and content of the responses to my questions
> > and comments in this area.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have made no accusations either explicit or implicit concerning the
> > IETF or ISOC.  I don't know enough about either of them to have any
> > opinion in these matters.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, those who do know rather more about the role that Comcast is
> > playing in the current communications policy and regulatory activities
> > in the US are raising warning flags to such an extent that one has
> > little alternative but to question the role that Comcast may be
> > playing in the quite parallel global Internet "governance" mechanisms
> > as per the IETF and ISOC. If nothing else there is the appearance of a
> > conflict of interest and given the other risks already pointed to with
> > respect to MSism and Global Internet Governance one surely must add
> > this to the list i.e. is it safe to proceed to a governance framework
> > where there are no evident or explicit boundaries between private
> > sector activities and interests and the public interest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, as I believe is the case for many on this list, there is no
> > belief that the Internet should be managed or governed in the public
> > interest (rather than as a concatenation of, or "consensus" among
> > private
> > interests) then this question has no meaning.  However, one hopes that
> > if nothing else, the NetMundial meeting will clearly affirm that the
> > overwhelming priority of the peoples of the world is to have the
> > Internet governed in the public interest and with the principles for
> > Internet governance being based on this fundamental value.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:01 PM
> > To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
> > Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting that the
> > IETF are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If you're not
> > suggesting that, then making that clear would be helpful I think.
> >
> >
> >
> > The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this kind of
> > new multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think it mostly does
> > come from large IT/networking companies. (But a substantial chunk
> > comes from meeting participants via meeting
> >
> > fees.)
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But so what?
> > That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other than
> > individual people thank the sponsors now and then.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of handling
> > rough consensus would, could or should be used in any other context.
> > Maybe some people have said or think that but the IETF hasn't said any
> > such thing that I recall. So you're also conflating entirely separate
> > things I think, and in an unfair manner.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable
> > treatment that I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being involved
> > with the IETF. You can believe me or not on that, and either way you
> > can audit all the mailing lists and (since the datatracker tool was
> > developed) all the IESG comments on drafts as they become RFCs. I
> > don't believe you will find even a dubious correlation, but I'd be
>interested if you did.
> >
> >
> >
> > IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.
> >
> >
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
> >
> >> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
> >
> >> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
> >
> >> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
> >
> >> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
> >
> >> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
> >
> >> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
> >
> >> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic
> >> self-interests
> > (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> 
> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-co>> mc>
> > http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc
> >
> >> asts-r
> >
> >> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> InfoWorld Home < <http://www.infoworld.com/>
> >> http://www.infoworld.com/> /
> > Notes from the Field
> >
> >> < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>
> > http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely> / Corruption,
> >
> >> distortion, control: Comcast's...
> >
> >>
> >
> >>  < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
> > http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
> >
> >>
> >
> >> March 21, 2014
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
> >
> >>
> >
> >> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details
> >
> >> of Comcast's power-hungry moves
> >
> >>
> >
> >> By Robert X. Cringely
> >
> >> < <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>
> > http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely> | InfoWorld
> >
> >> < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein
> >> in
> >
> >> his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net
> >
> >> neutrality delusion
> >
> >> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the->> f
> >
> >> ight-f
> >
> >> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom
> >> air-access-237815> Wheeler
> >
> >> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the
> >
> >> FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers
> >
> >> instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete
> >
> >> double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business
> >> these
> > days.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking,
> >
> >> slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this
> >
> >> consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like
> >
> >> Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure,
> >
> >> there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but
> >
> >> maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out
> >> from
> > pothead premises.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move
> >
> >> to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be
> >
> >> superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the
> >
> >> Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier
> >> this
> >
> >> month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and
> >
> >> enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in
> >> happy-happy
> > land.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
> >
> >> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set
> >
> >> to service about two-thirds of the American population with both
> >
> >> Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have
> >
> >> an actual, practical choice?
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Comcast spreads it tentacles
> >
> >> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two
> >> months,
> >
> >> and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows
> >> that
> >
> >> he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to
> >
> >> the tune of about $80 million
> >
> >> < <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>
> > http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How
> >
> >> could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it
> >
> >> loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this
> >> guy
> >
> >> a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have
> >
> >> to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from
> >
> >> rectal blood and salty tears.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With
> >
> >> Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to
> >
> >> bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on
> >
> >> what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed
> >
> >> Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind
> >> he's
> > already validated it.
> >
> >> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a
> >
> >> month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto!
> >
> >> Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast
> >> paint
> >
> >> this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as
> >
> >> dumb as a bag of hammers.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly
> >
> >> funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability
> >> and
> >
> >> with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests
> >
> >> guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts
> >
> >> of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy
> >
> >> processes.  What isn't made clear in the overwhelming forces and
> >
> >> banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an
> >
> >> attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom
> >
> >> policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this
> >
> >> what you want for Global Internet Governance?
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> M
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
> > <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> >
> >> Behalf Of McTim
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
> >
> >> To: Michel Gauthier
> >
> >> Cc: 1Net List
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <
> > <mailto:mg at telepresse.com> mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then
> >
> >> quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do
> >
> >> better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast
> >
> >> partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself
> >
> >> doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.
> >
> >> ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please
> >
> >> state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting
> >
> >> real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent
> >
> >> lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
> >
> >> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in
> >> support
> >
> >> of the other MGs snide insinuations.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they
> >
> >> do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
> >
> >>  <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy>
> > https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states:
> >
> >> "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky
> >
> >> < <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
> > http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html> will release additional
> > details about these poisoning attacks. "
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> another tangental red-herring.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and
> >
> >> corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
> > issues"
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> My question to you still stands.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> rgds,
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> McTim
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >
> >> discuss mailing list
> >
> >>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org
> >
> >>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.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 ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Mar 22 21:17:05 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:17:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <532E3611.101@cafonso.ca>

Your curious reference to French culture remains to be explained.

--c.a.

On 03/22/2014 02:29 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> You’re right – you’ve moved beyond snide insinuation to outright accusation that the IETF and ISOC are corrupt and that their processes and outcomes are influenced by Comcast’s sponsorships.  And, while you’re at it, that the “US telecom policy and regulatory system” are “corrupted” and that multistakeholderism “at its heart” is “an attempt to foist” that policy and regulatory system “on the Internet and on the world.”
>
> I’ll let Comcast fend for itself, but your accusations regarding IETF, ISOC and the multistakeholder organizations are quite outrageous and completely unsupported.
>
> I’m fairly confident that no matter what anyone does, says, or shows, you will stick to this worldview.  Since it would be a waste of time to crawl into the ditch with you and argue these points, I will install award you the first, inaugural “Tin Foil Beret” award.  As you can tell from the name, I didn’t expect that you would be the first winner, but as a resident of a quasi-Francophone country, you’re more than qualified on style as well as substance.  I’m sure you will wear it with pride, since you clearly think that the rest of us, lacking such haberdashery, are in the thrall of some massive mind-control exercise that you and a select few have managed to avoid.  So, while I disagree with virtually everything you’ve said here and believe that it has absolutely no basis in fact, you’ve earned this award with the courage of your convictions.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:00 PM
> To: 'McTim'
> Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
> I’m not sure why it might be a “snide insinuation”…
>
> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comcasts-real-life-house-of-cards-238904
>
> InfoWorld Home<http://www.infoworld.com/> / Notes from the Field<http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely> / Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's...
> [Robert X. Cringely]<http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
> March 21, 2014
> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details of Comcast's power-hungry moves
> By Robert X. Cringely<http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely> | InfoWorld<http://www.infoworld.com/>
> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net neutrality delusion<http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-fight-fair-access-237815> in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business these days.
> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking, slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure, there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out from pothead premises.
> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier this month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in happy-happy land.
> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set to service about two-thirds of the American population with both Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have an actual, practical choice?
> Comcast spreads it tentacles
> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two months, and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows that he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to the tune of about $80 million<http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>. How could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this guy a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from rectal blood and salty tears.
> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind he's already validated it. Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as dumb as a bag of hammers…
> Doesn’t seem very snide or insinuatory to me…
>
> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy processes.  What isn’t made clear in the overwhelming forces and banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.
>
> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists—is this what you want for Global Internet Governance?
>
> M
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of McTim
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
> To: Michel Gauthier
> Cc: 1Net List
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com<mailto:mg at telepresse.com>> wrote:
> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.  ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
>
> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
>
> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
>
>
> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support of the other MGs snide insinuations.
>
>
>
> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
>
>
> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
>
>
> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states: "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky<http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html> will release additional details about these poisoning attacks. "
>
>
> another tangental red-herring.
>
>
> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
>
>
> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet issues"
>
> My question to you still stands.
>
>
> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>
> rgds,
>
> McTim
>
>
>
>
>
> * * *
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.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  Sat Mar 22 22:06:53 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:06:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] DOT EDU EXTENSION
In-Reply-To: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGBVgoAzZZ8_W=xbtrAKJVG6w=LVGBD2qiojoyq6qZhHKLWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYo03i3S0R_hAqqQAorjFCuci0O2zM7++SegrfiD3tM3rQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kwasi,

Perhaps you could visit www.open-root.eu, and see whether it fits what you
have in mind (in french or english).
 .
Best. Louis.
- - -

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong <kboakye at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> I'd appreciate any advice and/ assistance.
>
> I'm trying to register a domain name with a .edu extension but it appears
> that .edu extensions are not available.
>
> Could someone advise how I could get a domain name with a .edu extension
> registered?
>
> Regards,
> Kwasi
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/0832cd60/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 22:57:02 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:57:02 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <77C804E5-1255-449F-9649-1BAB2536B383@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<CAJwbTiCErACoBifqdmL2w=poQb75oFypi-+tx+6Jg5US6Y+CCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<77C804E5-1255-449F-9649-1BAB2536B383@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCAgd=tDn01jsXkWxX3YHTBC-KbcX7sXLTqLonqv_BQwQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <
jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi coordinators,
>
> It seems like the IGC statement basically welcomes the US Department of
> commerce March 14 statement, asking ICANN to convene global stakeholders in
> order to develop a transition proposal. If so, why don't the IGC statement
> tells it clearly using the same NTIA words? (see paraph 1, 2 & 4 in red!)
>
> Second, it seems like the IGC wants to emphasize a couple of specific
> requests, or have a few reminder. So instead - at paraph 3-  of mentioning
> "THE MULTISTAKHOLDER MODEL" - which is something far from being defined -
> why don't you go for a more humble and true "A MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL"?
> Using the term "THE" seems to conclude to the existence of ONE SINGLE
> MODEL. Is that the case? DO we have one MODEL already set? Which one? Can
> we have a look at it?
>

I have amended the statement to read: "Multistakeholder governance models
should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem. "

>
> Regarding the expression "THAT ENHANCED DEMOCRACY", (see paraph 3) again
> this idea of "ENHANCED DEMOCRACY" is something very odd. Either we wish to
> RESPECT DEMOCRACY, or we do speak about something we don't know. WHAT IS
> THE NEXT BEST STAGE OF DEMOCRACY according to the IGC? This is vague
> enough, and slippery enough to maybe just mention "RESPECT DEMOCRACY". If
> we look for respecting Democracy, already quite a task then, where would
> you put the emphasis? I would recommend the idea of legitimacy, clear
> separation of power and definition of roles, accountability. As I haven't
> this in this statement, I do really wonder, if we should not all start by
> simply respecting democratic values, before "ENHANCING ANYTHING" toward
> something we have no idea about.
>
> The IGC is not at the spotlight here but we are focusing on what kind of
policy model we would like to see.
The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
all-inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by
its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected
by its policy decision processes and outcomes.


> Last comment: has this statement value for all the IGC participants as a
> collective endorsement? Yes, no? If Yes, how did this happen? If No, when
> and how do you plan to give it legitimacy. Without this I would recommend
> that the names of people supporting would come at the end of statement, as
> a sum of individual signature of IGC members, in agreement with themselves,
> instead of an IGC collective statement? Please detail how this is
> respectful of Democratic values, or "Enhanced democratic values", if that
> would already be the case. I might have miss something.
>
> Thanks for your patience and good work
>
> JC
>
> *IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. *
>
>
> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
> intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
> community and has asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a
> proposal for this purpose.
>
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil
> society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes the US
> Department of Commerce's resolve to involve all stakeholders in the
> transition toward a multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and
> governance.
>
>
> The IGC supports a multi-stakeholder policymaking and governance model as
> an all inclusive, bottom-up, legitimate, accountable, consensus driven
> model that respects democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from
> around the world who might be affected by its policy decision processes and
> outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement globally is critical
> for the processes to be authentic and in the global public interest.
>
>
> The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
> Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>
>
>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to ICANN to guide
> IANA and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
> proposal. It is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global
> availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
> and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
> Internet users around the globe.
>
>
> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
> community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated
> with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
> stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also
> critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.
>
>
> For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org
>
>
>
> *Ends*
>
>
>
> Le 21 mars 2014 à 08:40, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit :
>
> *Dear Coordinators and the IGC:*
>
> Kindly find the revised cleaned version of the Statement.
>
> *IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. *
>
>
> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
> intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
> community.
>
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil
> society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
> resolve to involve all stakeholders in the transition toward a
> stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what the NTIA has been
> referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)
>
>
> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all
> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
> the global public interest.
>
>
> The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
> Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>
>
>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
> global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
> is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
> of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
> same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
> around the globe.
>
>
> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
> community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated
> with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
> stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also
> critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.
>
>
> For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org
>
>
>
> *Ends*
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net
> > wrote:
>
>>  More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.
>>
>> On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would prefer my formulation below.
>>>
>>> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>>>
>>> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
>>>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
>>>> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
>>>> the global public interest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of
>>>> the Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>>>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>>>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>>>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>
>>
> <IGC Statement Responding to NTIA Final Version 21.3.14.docx>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/f539587e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 22 23:03:42 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:03:42 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced
 intent to relinquish role in IANA functions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCAgd=tDn01jsXkWxX3YHTBC-KbcX7sXLTqLonqv_BQwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBODySeDooYn9knkt4KN8pqCJhjbFpdvL7EU=ibFcLk9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjPyFAxb11K62BfQuVn7GCeF8NwC_2qh=em_-oab==yvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<144e27b4f80.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<CAJwbTiCErACoBifqdmL2w=poQb75oFypi-+tx+6Jg5US6Y+CCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<77C804E5-1255-449F-9649-1BAB2536B383@gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiCAgd=tDn01jsXkWxX3YHTBC-KbcX7sXLTqLonqv_BQwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAQ=jycouesD79fHvL1Fr2D+t_2MRoyzENPg2WY0B0EBA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

I have made last minute revisions based on some suggestions by
Jean-Christophe and they are in "red". I am now handing this version over
to the Coordinators to take the Statement through a consensus call. Many
thanks to Mawaki for the original draft and to the subsequent contributions
by those who have made suggestions for amendments and edits etc.



*IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. *



On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
community.

 The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil
society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and
appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
resolve to involve all stakeholders in the transition toward a
stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what the NTIA has been
referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)


 The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
all-inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by
its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected
by its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance
meaningful engagement globally is critical for the processes to be
authentic and to preserve and protect global public interest.


Multistakeholder governance models should include all sectors of the
Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.


 We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
around the globe.


 The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated
with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also
critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.


For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org



*Ends*



On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <
> jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi coordinators,
>>
>> It seems like the IGC statement basically welcomes the US Department of
>> commerce March 14 statement, asking ICANN to convene global stakeholders in
>> order to develop a transition proposal. If so, why don't the IGC statement
>> tells it clearly using the same NTIA words? (see paraph 1, 2 & 4 in red!)
>>
>> Second, it seems like the IGC wants to emphasize a couple of specific
>> requests, or have a few reminder. So instead - at paraph 3-  of mentioning
>> "THE MULTISTAKHOLDER MODEL" - which is something far from being defined -
>> why don't you go for a more humble and true "A MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL"?
>> Using the term "THE" seems to conclude to the existence of ONE SINGLE
>> MODEL. Is that the case? DO we have one MODEL already set? Which one? Can
>> we have a look at it?
>>
>
> I have amended the statement to read: "Multistakeholder governance models
> should include all sectors of the Internet ecosystem. "
>
>>
>> Regarding the expression "THAT ENHANCED DEMOCRACY", (see paraph 3) again
>> this idea of "ENHANCED DEMOCRACY" is something very odd. Either we wish to
>> RESPECT DEMOCRACY, or we do speak about something we don't know. WHAT IS
>> THE NEXT BEST STAGE OF DEMOCRACY according to the IGC? This is vague
>> enough, and slippery enough to maybe just mention "RESPECT DEMOCRACY". If
>> we look for respecting Democracy, already quite a task then, where would
>> you put the emphasis? I would recommend the idea of legitimacy, clear
>> separation of power and definition of roles, accountability. As I haven't
>> this in this statement, I do really wonder, if we should not all start by
>> simply respecting democratic values, before "ENHANCING ANYTHING" toward
>> something we have no idea about.
>>
>> The IGC is not at the spotlight here but we are focusing on what kind of
> policy model we would like to see.
> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
> all-inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by
> its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected
> by its policy decision processes and outcomes.
>
>
>> Last comment: has this statement value for all the IGC participants as a
>> collective endorsement? Yes, no? If Yes, how did this happen? If No, when
>> and how do you plan to give it legitimacy. Without this I would recommend
>> that the names of people supporting would come at the end of statement, as
>> a sum of individual signature of IGC members, in agreement with themselves,
>> instead of an IGC collective statement? Please detail how this is
>> respectful of Democratic values, or "Enhanced democratic values", if that
>> would already be the case. I might have miss something.
>>
>> Thanks for your patience and good work
>>
>> JC
>>
>> *IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
>> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. *
>>
>>
>> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
>> intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
>> community and has asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop
>> a proposal for this purpose.
>>
>>
>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil
>> society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes the US
>> Department of Commerce's resolve to involve all stakeholders in the
>> transition toward a multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and
>> governance.
>>
>>
>> The IGC supports a multi-stakeholder policymaking and governance model
>> as an all inclusive, bottom-up, legitimate, accountable, consensus
>> driven model that respects democracy by its inclusiveness of all people
>> from around the world who might be affected by its policy decision
>> processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful engagement globally
>> is critical for the processes to be authentic and in the global public
>> interest.
>>
>>
>> The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
>> Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>
>>
>>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to ICANN to guide
>> IANA and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition
>> proposal. It is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global
>> availability of the Internet while continuously improving on its security
>> and at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
>> Internet users around the globe.
>>
>>
>> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
>> community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated
>> with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>> stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also
>> critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.
>>
>>
>> For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org
>>
>>
>>
>> *Ends*
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 21 mars 2014 à 08:40, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit :
>>
>> *Dear Coordinators and the IGC:*
>>
>> Kindly find the revised cleaned version of the Statement.
>>
>> *IGC Statement Responding to NTIA's Call to Start Transitioning IANA
>> Functions to the Internet Global Multi-Stakeholder Community. *
>>
>>
>> On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National
>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its
>> intention to transition the IANA functions to the global Multistakeholder
>> community.
>>
>>
>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is the oldest civil
>> society network formed since pre-WSIS. The IGC welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity for these functions and the stewardship of the
>> Internet domain name system (DNS) to further evolve toward a governance
>> model that is truly global and widely accepted. The IGC welcomes NTIA's
>> resolve to involve all stakeholders in the transition toward a
>> stakeholders-led administration of the DNS (what the NTIA has been
>> referring to as the privatization of the DNS.)
>>
>>
>> The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all
>> inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
>> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
>> the global public interest.
>>
>>
>> The Multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of the
>> Internet ecosystem. In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>
>>
>>  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
>> global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It
>> is critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability
>> of the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the
>> same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users
>> around the globe.
>>
>>
>> The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet
>> community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated
>> with the emerging governance framework so as to make effective
>> participation affordable for developing nations and related Internet
>> stakeholders. Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also
>> critical in improving access and enabling meaningful participation.
>>
>>
>> For clarification or to contact the IGC email coordinators at igcaucus.org
>>
>>
>>
>> *Ends*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  More inclusive and catchall. Fine with me.
>>>
>>> On 21 March 2014 7:50:45 am McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would prefer my formulation below.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't restrict us to CS, PS and governments.
>>>>
>>>> I have used html formatting, apologies for that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  The IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an all inclusive,
>>>>> bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy by its
>>>>> inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be affected by
>>>>> its policy decision processes and outcomes. The need to enhance meaningful
>>>>> engagement globally is critical for the processes to be authentic and in
>>>>> the global public interest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The multistakeholder governance model should include all sectors of
>>>>> the Internet ecosystem.*  In the inclusive spirit of an authentic
>>>>> Multistakeholder model, we stand ready to work with all stakeholders and
>>>>> make sure effective consideration is given to the concerns and views of
>>>>> Internet users, citizens and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> McTim
>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>>
>>>
>> <IGC Statement Responding to NTIA Final Version 21.3.14.docx>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/1579f56a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar 23 01:47:54 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:17:54 +0530
Subject: [discuss] [governance] RE: FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <bb359090bbfd4ab288491452a13d0898@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>	<532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>	<057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>	<532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>,	<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <bb359090bbfd4ab288491452a13d0898@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <532E758A.4030008@itforchange.net>

Lee

We may be in a hurry to pack off all canons of democratic politics, and 
of public institutions, but I dont think one has to be so surprised 
about, and pooh pooh, propositions that any organisation that becomes 
substantially involved with public governance must be insulated from 
private funding. Or would you suggest that you find it fine if you come 
to know that private companies are financing US Congressional committees 
and so on? More inline...

On Sunday 23 March 2014 05:50 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Ok Michael,
>
> I will take the bait; I see no problem from a global Internet governance view.
>
> It is normal/acceptable practice for technical standards bodies to - meet.
>
> Someone/some firms helping cover those costs is also - 100% normal.

No, not normal. especially if a particular standards body (1) makes 
decisions that are very  crucial to public interest, and (2) have no 
'public' oversight mechanism which itself could be ensured to be fully 
independent of private funding..... And IETF qualifies by both criteria.
>
> One might surmise a firm agreeing to contribute to the costs - has an interest in the topics under discussion - or at least a couple of them.

Yes, almost always.
>
> And this is news? Somehow controversial?

Extremely controversial - to finance in such manner a public forum 
taking decisions which implicates the financing party. A basic and well 
known principle of democratic policy and public life.
>
> Finally,and I hate being put in the position to have to defend the - dominant (~30% market share) cable provider in the US, but it's not Comcast's fault that the FCC implemented policies without the requisite legislative authority, according to the courts not once but multiple times. One might blame the FCC, or Congress, but the winning side in repeated court actions usually is seen as having been the aggrieved party. Which in this case, cough, more often than not was Comcast.

Maybe you consider it entirely innocent of Comcast that the FCC guy who 
allowed one of the largest corporate mergers in favour of Comcast joined 
Comcast a few months later 
<http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2011/05/31/legalized-corruption-the-comcast-merger-and-the-fcc/>.  
Not many others do. But we have our predilections.
>
> As Stephen noted, noone is suggesting Comcast are angels; but the leap from Comcast attempting to garner (perhaps) some goodwill by kicking into cover some of the costs to cries of foul play is a pretty long leap.

Is it? In that case, i reckon you would see nothing wrong in Monsanto 
financing the sittings of Congressional committees on agriculture, just 
to garner some goodwill ... I will really like to know your response to 
this.
>
> Or maybe, as a major broadband provider, Comcast is just acting like any number of other companies with interest in standards processes and supporting the process.

Yes, they are acting like any normal company... But I fear we have not 
be acting like normal civil society, in our overbearing desire to 
exonerate some of the most powerful and corrupt influences on how the 
global Internet is shaping today.

>
> In sum, we may as well be 'shocked' to learn firms pay big $$ to hang at W3C: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees-2013; or...well hopefully you get the point.

We have our different shocks I reckon. And In fact I keep hoping that 
you get the point of how valuable a culture and norms of democracy are, 
and how loose we are getting about them, and the dangers inherent.
>
> If you want an open and interoperable network of networks, and/or a world wide web, there's costs involved which do not come out of anyone's taxes or from foundations.

It should come out of public finances.... How to order such necessary 
public finances is a governance challenge. But if we are in a hurry to 
jettison democratic principles , it is isnt the best way to meet that 
challenge. But if we indeed stick to basic principles, the challenge can 
certainly be met.

>
> Lots and lots of volunteers contribute too; but they also appreciate having a 'free' coffee during a break I suspect.

I wont call fully paid corporate employees pursing specific objectives 
as volunteers, but yes there are genuine volunteers as well, and they 
must be supported by public finance.

parminder
>
> Lee
>
> PS: Actual tactics to try to cook/bias IETF output/RFC's...that would be a whole other thing. And given the extreme degree of transparency always practiced by IETF, a much higher degree of difficulty.  Not that it has not been tried, but buying folks a coffee or whatever, would not be the way to go about that. ; )
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:18 PM
> To: 'Stephen Farrell'; 'McTim'
> Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
> To be clear Stephen,
>
> As meetings among professionals to discuss professional/technical matters,
> it makes (or should make) no difference to anyone who provides the funding.
>
> However, as bodies which are being identified as core mechanisms in the
> global governance of the Internet (and as central to the desired global
> stampede towards MSism) it matters a very great deal.
>
> Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
> standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
> or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
> key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:28 PM
> To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
> Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I don't agree that there's an inherent conflict of interest involved in the
> IETF being sponsored by large companies that operate in IT/networking.
> That's in large part due to how the IETF is setup and managed openly and
> transparently etc. Again, if someone wants to go check it out, I think all
> the sponsorships are public and I know all the mailing lists are there and
> all the IETF nomcom memberships and selections etc etc. To the best of my
> knowledge you will not find any such conflict is real.
>
> And while I have no axe to grind for Comcast, I did in the past work for
> another large company in that space and I really would be surprised if one
> of those is that much worse or better than another. I think they all have
> their good and less good aspects, as do many large organisations, such as
> governments.
>
> I also think your broader point about MSism not being in your view the right
> model does not require you to try to argue that the IETF's funding creates
> such a conflict. Especially since the IETF doesn't have such a conflict. You
> would do far better to argue that the IETF setup is pretty good but doesn't
> generalise as claimed I figure.
>
> Oh, and if you have suggestions as to how the IETF could get other sources
> of funding, I know for sure that the ISOC folks who chase that money to
> support the IETF and RFC editor would just love to hear from you:-)
>
> S.
>
>
> On 03/22/2014 09:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Tks Stephen,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that my comments were meant for the larger audience of
>> those with an interest in how the Internet is and is to be
> managed/governed i.e.
>> all of those impacted by the Internet which by now includes most
>> everyone in the world.  It was only incidentally meant for those,
>> including those most active on this (and other IG related) lists, for
>> whom no argument that presents critical analyses or questions
>> concerning this drive towards MSism apparently can be countenanced.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I said was:
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
>> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
>> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
>> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
>> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
>> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
>> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
>> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests
> (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>>
>>
>> So far no one has questioned the truth of this statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> "We" and here I mean all of those in the larger audience I'm referring
>> to above are being asked to accept this state of affairs unquestioningly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Earlier I noted some highly questionable experiences with the MS
>> process as currently being operationalized through 1Net and elsewhere.
>> I received no useful explanation or response.
>>
>>
>>
>> Additionally I introduced a series of questions with respect to how
>> various "risks" associated with MSism might be handled given the
>> significance that is being given to MSism as the preferred mechanism
>> for Internet (and other?) governance arrangements. I received no
> explanation or response.
>>
>>
>> In this current interaction I noted what appeared to be at least the
>> potential for a significant conflict of interest in two of the primary
>> current mechanisms for MSism which as we know is being explicitly
>> described as a post-democratic governance mechanism for the Internet.
>> You have seen the quality and content of the responses to my questions
>> and comments in this area.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have made no accusations either explicit or implicit concerning the
>> IETF or ISOC.  I don't know enough about either of them to have any
>> opinion in these matters.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, those who do know rather more about the role that Comcast is
>> playing in the current communications policy and regulatory activities
>> in the US are raising warning flags to such an extent that one has
>> little alternative but to question the role that Comcast may be
>> playing in the quite parallel global Internet "governance" mechanisms
>> as per the IETF and ISOC. If nothing else there is the appearance of a
>> conflict of interest and given the other risks already pointed to with
>> respect to MSism and Global Internet Governance one surely must add
>> this to the list i.e. is it safe to proceed to a governance framework
>> where there are no evident or explicit boundaries between private
>> sector activities and interests and the public interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, as I believe is the case for many on this list, there is no
>> belief that the Internet should be managed or governed in the public
>> interest (rather than as a concatenation of, or "consensus" among
>> private
>> interests) then this question has no meaning.  However, one hopes that
>> if nothing else, the NetMundial meeting will clearly affirm that the
>> overwhelming priority of the peoples of the world is to have the
>> Internet governed in the public interest and with the principles for
>> Internet governance being based on this fundamental value.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:01 PM
>> To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
>> Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting that the
>> IETF are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If you're not
>> suggesting that, then making that clear would be helpful I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this kind of
>> new multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think it mostly does
>> come from large IT/networking companies. (But a substantial chunk
>> comes from meeting participants via meeting
>>
>> fees.)
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But so what?
>> That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other than
>> individual people thank the sponsors now and then.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of handling
>> rough consensus would, could or should be used in any other context.
>> Maybe some people have said or think that but the IETF hasn't said any
>> such thing that I recall. So you're also conflating entirely separate
>> things I think, and in an unfair manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable
>> treatment that I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being involved
>> with the IETF. You can believe me or not on that, and either way you
>> can audit all the mailing lists and (since the datatracker tool was
>> developed) all the IESG comments on drafts as they become RFCs. I
>> don't believe you will find even a dubious correlation, but I'd be
> interested if you did.
>>
>>
>> IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.
>>
>>
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
>>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
>>> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
>>> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
>>> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
>>> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
>>> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
>>> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
>>> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic
>>> self-interests
>> (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>>
>>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-co
>>> mc>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc
>>
>>> asts-r
>>> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
>>> InfoWorld Home < <http://www.infoworld.com/>
>>> http://www.infoworld.com/>  /
>> Notes from the Field
>>
>>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
>>
>>> distortion, control: Comcast's...
>>>   < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
>>
>>> March 21, 2014
>>> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
>>> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details
>>> of Comcast's power-hungry moves
>>> By Robert X. Cringely
>>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
>>
>>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>
>>> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein
>>> in
>>> his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net
>>> neutrality delusion
>>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-
>>> f
>>> ight-f
>>> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom
>>> air-access-237815> Wheeler
>>> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the
>>> FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers
>>> instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete
>>> double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business
>>> these
>> days.
>>
>>> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking,
>>> slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this
>>> consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like
>>> Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure,
>>> there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but
>>> maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out
>>> from
>> pothead premises.
>>
>>> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move
>>> to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be
>>> superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the
>>> Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier
>>> this
>>> month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and
>>> enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in
>>> happy-happy
>> land.
>>
>>> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
>>> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set
>>> to service about two-thirds of the American population with both
>>> Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have
>>> an actual, practical choice?
>>> Comcast spreads it tentacles
>>> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two
>>> months,
>>> and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows
>>> that
>>> he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to
>>> the tune of about $80 million
>>> < <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>
>> http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How
>>
>>> could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it
>>> loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this
>>> guy
>>> a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have
>>> to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from
>>> rectal blood and salty tears.
>>> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With
>>> Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to
>>> bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on
>>> what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed
>>> Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind
>>> he's
>> already validated it.
>>
>>> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a
>>> month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto!
>>> Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast
>>> paint
>>> this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as
>>> dumb as a bag of hammers.
>>> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
>>> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly
>>> funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability
>>> and
>>> with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests
>>> guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts
>>> of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy
>>> processes.  What isn't made clear in the overwhelming forces and
>>> banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an
>>> attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom
>>> policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.
>>> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this
>>> what you want for Global Internet Governance?
>>> M
>>> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>>
>>> Behalf Of McTim
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
>>> To: Michel Gauthier
>>> Cc: 1Net List
>>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <
>> <mailto:mg at telepresse.com> mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>>> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then
>>> quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do
>>> better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast
>>> partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself
>>> doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.
>>> ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
>>> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please
>>> state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
>>> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting
>>> real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent
>>> lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
>>> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
>>> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in
>>> support
>>> of the other MGs snide insinuations.
>>> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
>>> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they
>>> do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
>>> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
>>>   <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy>
>> https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states:
>>
>>> "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky
>>> < <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
>> http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will release additional
>> details about these poisoning attacks. "
>>
>>> another tangental red-herring.
>>> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and
>>> corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
>>> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
>> issues"
>>
>>> My question to you still stands.
>>> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>>> rgds,
>>> McTim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>>   <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org
>>>   <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/9ebf6642/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar 23 02:59:35 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:29:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>	<532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>	<057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>	<532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>	<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>	<6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>	<532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>	<062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>

This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says

"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
  In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
    varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on the other traffic on the Internet."


It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, 
but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort 
Internet research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no 
no for governance functions (standards making for something as socially 
important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral 
public oversight constitutes a governance function).

parminder

On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Michael,
>
> On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
>> do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
>> Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
>> expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
>> transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
>> John, I think a rather significant problem.
> Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
>
> And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
> all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
> I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
> how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
> context.
>
> But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
> at the facts in the public record and then come back.
> I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
> found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
> same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
> pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
> if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
>
> So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
> And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
> anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
> The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
> this paragraph.
>
> S.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
> i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
> 6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
> fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
> Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
> EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
> =eajt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/9ac6d366/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nashton at ccianet.org  Sun Mar 23 03:25:33 2014
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:25:33 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] 1net Discuss Mailing List purpose
In-Reply-To: <532DF8F6.3060909@afilias.info>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C18D4A@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <201403221852.s2MIqDpr013419@aserp1020.oracle.com> <AF0D675D-E42C-4F70-A830-38F0AD2FC952@oracle.com> <62BC5002-12A4-4353-8F56-4AC7B2546EF6@istaff.org> <532DF8F6.3060909@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <090FF48B-E4A1-4A40-BCA6-FEB2E913DC5E@ccianet.org>

What would be very helpful is for all list participants to actually post according to the standards of behaviour from the /1net site - and where they fail to do so, for someone associated with /1net's management, presumably the steering committee, to take responsibility for at least putting persistent infringers on receive-only.

The standards are linked at the bottom of every page - URL here: http://1net.org/standards-of-behavior


On 22 Mar 2014, at 21:56, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:

> John
> 
> +1
> 
> Ken Stubbs
> my views alone as well..
> 
> On 3/22/2014 4:46 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ok, I will join the chorus asking to be removed from this thread.  Is this initiated by some action of mine or the list administrator?
>> Joseph -
>> 
>> Thanks for your note!  It is helpful from time to time to step back
>> and consider these mailing list threads with respect to our goals.
>> I am not a list administrator, but am quite willing to remind the
>> participants (at least on the 1net list) what we are here to accomplish...
>> 
>> 1net Mailing List Participants -
>> 
>>  The 1net discussion forum is intended to be a neutral, focused
>>  initiative working towards actionable collaborative solutions.
>> 
>>  Ergo, if anyone has a specific problem statement and proposed
>>  solution with regard to any issues raised by the cosponsorship
>>  announcement, feel free post the problem statement and your
>>  proposed solution to the 1net list for collaborative discussion.
>> 
>>  If that is not your intention, I would personally suggest that you
>>  find another mailing list for your general ruminations on the topic.
>> 
>>  I would note that there is already a remarkable amount of work to be done
>>  this year on existing problem statements and as such we will need to keep
>>  quite focused if we actually wish to succeed in developing collaborative
>>  actionable solutions.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>> 
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/a339b74f/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/a339b74f/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Sun Mar 23 04:45:07 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:45:07 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [aisi-ig-l] Dot Africa contract signing ceremony
In-Reply-To: <55676.10.254.253.3.1395558196.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org>
References: <55676.10.254.253.3.1395558196.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10occcBHunfO_t+ntxBLzNzrs0x_39yc7z-bdVCYt9=XQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Alice.. sharing at the same time to the larger networks


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Apologies for cross posting.
>
>
> The AUC/ZACR Dot Africa contract signing ceremony will take place during
> the ICANN meeting in Singapore.
>
> For those present, please see below  details
>
> When: Wednesday 26 at
> Time: 18.30
> Venue: CANNING room
>
> There will be video coverage and live streaming for this historic moment.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/cac9a3be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar 23 05:26:15 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:56:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532EA8B7.3080302@itforchange.net>

Alejandro

It is difficult for me to discuss this issue with you when you so 
seamlessly conflate 'public' with undemocratic governments. This to me 
betrays a complete lack of belief in politics and democracy - for 
anything that governs will be governments, and they are bad as per you. 
The only alternative being that market logic governs all aspects of 
social relationships  - including what was traditionally outside market 
framework, for instance, governance. The ideology of extension of market 
logic to more or less all social affairs goes by the name of neoliberalism.

In addition, your reading of what civil society does or stands for is 
quite erroneous. Dont be guided with some elements of IG civil society 
that seems rather comfortable in company of big business. BTW the 
following wikipedia of World Social Forum may explicate what I am trying 
to say

"Some^[/who? 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words>/] consider 
the World Social Forum to be a physical manifestation of global civil 
society <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society>, as it brings 
together non governmental organizations 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_governmental_organizations>, advocacy 
campaigns as well as formal and informal social movements 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movements> seeking international 
solidarity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity>. The World Social 
Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space -- plural, diverse, 
non-governmental and non-partisan -- that stimulates the decentralized 
debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and 
alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions 
towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair world....a permanent 
space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism>."^[1] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum#cite_note-1> "

See the part on building alternatives to neoliberalism, which in respect 
to governance refers to corporate dominance over governance processes. 
Believe me, these guys believe thoroughly in democratic governance and 
governments. Even for undemocratic governments they advocate making them 
democratic and inculcate participatory democracy. I havent heard them 
ever speak of multistakeholderism, especially IG style.

Still, to continue an effort for a dialogue, I can try and ask you a 
specific question to clarify what exactly is at the heart of 
thediscussionon public financing of governance functions .

Would you accept it if Mexican governmental committees dealing with key 
policy functions are financed by corporations?

Following from your answer to this question we can further discuss the 
public financing issue.

Regards
parminder

On Sunday 23 March 2014 12:52 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil 
> society has gained the most among all sectors from the 
> multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or 
> the environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a 
> global voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with 
> influence inside our countries.
>
> Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g. 
> through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private 
> funding; the same governments most civil society is at odds with 
> (admittedly in very different ways and levels.)
>
> I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society 
> leading the effort to braid the rope with which governments would 
> gladly hang us.
>
> Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, 
> open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder 
> processes undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental 
> "democratic", when maybe two thirds of the world population do not 
> consider their condition democratic.
>
> The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after 
> stating lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign 
> spoken of - is not doing away with the multistakeholder component in 
> favor of the governmental or multilateral, but optimizing the combined 
> contributions they can make. ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of 
> learning in this respect, wasted by not being studied enough. And the 
> whole framework is vital for the NTIA functional substitution problem 
> to hand, which these discussions have long drifted away from.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says
>
>     "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
>       In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
>         varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on the other traffic on the Internet."
>
>
>     It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly
>     function, but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial
>     funding can distort Internet research, it is but obviously that it
>     has to be an absolute no no for governance functions (standards
>     making for something as socially important today as the Internet,
>     in absence of any further neutral public oversight constitutes a
>     governance function).
>
>     parminder
>
>     On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>     Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>     Michael,
>>
>>     On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>     I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
>>>     do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
>>>     Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
>>>     expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
>>>     transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
>>>     John, I think a rather significant problem.
>>     Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
>>
>>     And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
>>     all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
>>     I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
>>     how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
>>     context.
>>
>>     But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
>>     at the facts in the public record and then come back.
>>     I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
>>     found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
>>     same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
>>     pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
>>     if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
>>
>>     So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
>>     And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
>>     anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
>>     The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
>>     this paragraph.
>>
>>     S.
>>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>     Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>>     iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
>>     i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
>>     6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
>>     fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
>>     Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
>>     EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
>>     =eajt
>>     -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     discuss mailing list
>>     discuss at 1net.org  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/d3235d59/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Sun Mar 23 05:26:52 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:56:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <bb359090bbfd4ab288491452a13d0898@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>,<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <bb359090bbfd4ab288491452a13d0898@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <532EA8DC.9030305@ITforChange.net>

On 03/23/2014 05:50 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Ok Michael,
>
snip
> In sum, we may as well be 'shocked' to learn firms pay big $$ to hang at W3C: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees-2013; or...well hopefully you get the point.
>
> If you want an open and interoperable network of networks, and/or a world wide web, there's costs involved which do not come out of anyone's taxes or from foundations.

Lee
There are at least two good  sources of funds which can support many 
critical infrastructure building requirements relating to the Internet ...

1. ICANN Tax revenues which today it splurges on its followers and on 
constituency creation. the spending of money from tld sales requires 
much higher public accountability than it does today.
2.  The untaxed revenues of IT trans-nationals who evade taxes also 
through questionable means. Its a paradox that on one hand, 
extraordinarily huge profits/revenues are being made by several 
companies in the IT space... if they pay due taxes then this problem 
would not be so acute..

Our tech standards bodies could receive some of the public funding 
generated from taxes, also for funding building IT infrastructure 
backbone etc.

(The inability or unwillingness to tax is a strong neo-liberal 
phenomena... witness the deterioration of public infrastructure - 
Railroads, power distribution etc. in the USA, due to this)

regards,
Guru

> Lots and lots of volunteers contribute too; but they also appreciate having a 'free' coffee during a break I suspect.
>
> Lee
>
> PS: Actual tactics to try to cook/bias IETF output/RFC's...that would be a whole other thing. And given the extreme degree of transparency always practiced by IETF, a much higher degree of difficulty.  Not that it has not been tried, but buying folks a coffee or whatever, would not be the way to go about that. ; )
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:18 PM
> To: 'Stephen Farrell'; 'McTim'
> Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
> To be clear Stephen,
>
> As meetings among professionals to discuss professional/technical matters,
> it makes (or should make) no difference to anyone who provides the funding.
>
> However, as bodies which are being identified as core mechanisms in the
> global governance of the Internet (and as central to the desired global
> stampede towards MSism) it matters a very great deal.
>
> Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
> standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
> or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
> key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:28 PM
> To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
> Cc: 'bestbits'; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I don't agree that there's an inherent conflict of interest involved in the
> IETF being sponsored by large companies that operate in IT/networking.
> That's in large part due to how the IETF is setup and managed openly and
> transparently etc. Again, if someone wants to go check it out, I think all
> the sponsorships are public and I know all the mailing lists are there and
> all the IETF nomcom memberships and selections etc etc. To the best of my
> knowledge you will not find any such conflict is real.
>
> And while I have no axe to grind for Comcast, I did in the past work for
> another large company in that space and I really would be surprised if one
> of those is that much worse or better than another. I think they all have
> their good and less good aspects, as do many large organisations, such as
> governments.
>
> I also think your broader point about MSism not being in your view the right
> model does not require you to try to argue that the IETF's funding creates
> such a conflict. Especially since the IETF doesn't have such a conflict. You
> would do far better to argue that the IETF setup is pretty good but doesn't
> generalise as claimed I figure.
>
> Oh, and if you have suggestions as to how the IETF could get other sources
> of funding, I know for sure that the ISOC folks who chase that money to
> support the IETF and RFC editor would just love to hear from you:-)
>
> S.
>
>
> On 03/22/2014 09:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Tks Stephen,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that my comments were meant for the larger audience of
>> those with an interest in how the Internet is and is to be
> managed/governed i.e.
>> all of those impacted by the Internet which by now includes most
>> everyone in the world.  It was only incidentally meant for those,
>> including those most active on this (and other IG related) lists, for
>> whom no argument that presents critical analyses or questions
>> concerning this drive towards MSism apparently can be countenanced.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I said was:
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
>> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
>> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
>> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
>> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
>> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
>> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
>> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic self-interests
> (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>>
>>
>> So far no one has questioned the truth of this statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> "We" and here I mean all of those in the larger audience I'm referring
>> to above are being asked to accept this state of affairs unquestioningly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Earlier I noted some highly questionable experiences with the MS
>> process as currently being operationalized through 1Net and elsewhere.
>> I received no useful explanation or response.
>>
>>
>>
>> Additionally I introduced a series of questions with respect to how
>> various "risks" associated with MSism might be handled given the
>> significance that is being given to MSism as the preferred mechanism
>> for Internet (and other?) governance arrangements. I received no
> explanation or response.
>>
>>
>> In this current interaction I noted what appeared to be at least the
>> potential for a significant conflict of interest in two of the primary
>> current mechanisms for MSism which as we know is being explicitly
>> described as a post-democratic governance mechanism for the Internet.
>> You have seen the quality and content of the responses to my questions
>> and comments in this area.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have made no accusations either explicit or implicit concerning the
>> IETF or ISOC.  I don't know enough about either of them to have any
>> opinion in these matters.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, those who do know rather more about the role that Comcast is
>> playing in the current communications policy and regulatory activities
>> in the US are raising warning flags to such an extent that one has
>> little alternative but to question the role that Comcast may be
>> playing in the quite parallel global Internet "governance" mechanisms
>> as per the IETF and ISOC. If nothing else there is the appearance of a
>> conflict of interest and given the other risks already pointed to with
>> respect to MSism and Global Internet Governance one surely must add
>> this to the list i.e. is it safe to proceed to a governance framework
>> where there are no evident or explicit boundaries between private
>> sector activities and interests and the public interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, as I believe is the case for many on this list, there is no
>> belief that the Internet should be managed or governed in the public
>> interest (rather than as a concatenation of, or "consensus" among
>> private
>> interests) then this question has no meaning.  However, one hopes that
>> if nothing else, the NetMundial meeting will clearly affirm that the
>> overwhelming priority of the peoples of the world is to have the
>> Internet governed in the public interest and with the principles for
>> Internet governance being based on this fundamental value.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:01 PM
>> To: michael gurstein; 'McTim'
>> Cc: bestbits; '1Net List'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you're very far off base there, if you're suggesting that the
>> IETF are somehow corrupted by this sponsorship. If you're not
>> suggesting that, then making that clear would be helpful I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF's funding is pretty transparent I think. Between this kind of
>> new multi-year deal and meeting sponsorships, I think it mostly does
>> come from large IT/networking companies. (But a substantial chunk
>> comes from meeting participants via meeting
>>
>> fees.)
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that no large company has even been a saint. But so what?
>> That has afaik no influence on what the IETF does other than
>> individual people thank the sponsors now and then.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, I don't recall the IETF ever proposing that our way of handling
>> rough consensus would, could or should be used in any other context.
>> Maybe some people have said or think that but the IETF hasn't said any
>> such thing that I recall. So you're also conflating entirely separate
>> things I think, and in an unfair manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, sponsoring the IETF doesn't get anyone any favourable
>> treatment that I've seen in the last nearly 19 years of being involved
>> with the IETF. You can believe me or not on that, and either way you
>> can audit all the mailing lists and (since the datatracker tool was
>> developed) all the IESG comments on drafts as they become RFCs. I
>> don't believe you will find even a dubious correlation, but I'd be
> interested if you did.
>>
>>
>> IMO you are just barking up the wrong tree.
>>
>>
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/22/2014 05:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why it might be a "snide insinuation".
>>> It seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major
>>> pillars of multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted
>>> by the US Government and its followers in the tech and civil society
>>> communities as a replacement for democratic governance of the
>>> Internet, have long histories of accepting payments from Comcast a
>>> major US corporation which is widely understood as being among the
>>> least ethical and possibly most active in undermining US policy and
>>> regulatory processes in support of its own narrow economic
>>> self-interests
>> (increasingly encompassing the Internet).
>>
>>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-co
>>> mc>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comc
>>
>>> asts-r
>>> eal-life-house-of-cards-238904
>>> InfoWorld Home < <http://www.infoworld.com/>
>>> http://www.infoworld.com/>  /
>> Notes from the Field
>>
>>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely>  / Corruption,
>>
>>> distortion, control: Comcast's...
>>>   < <http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely> Robert X. Cringely
>>
>>> March 21, 2014
>>> Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's real-life 'House of Cards'
>>> The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger hides damning details
>>> of Comcast's power-hungry moves
>>> By Robert X. Cringely
>>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely>  | InfoWorld
>>
>>> < <http://www.infoworld.com/> http://www.infoworld.com/>
>>> Let's talk about Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein
>>> in
>>> his forehead throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's Net
>>> neutrality delusion
>>> <http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-
>>> f
>>> ight-f
>>> air-access-237815>  in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom
>>> air-access-237815> Wheeler
>>> interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the
>>> FCC even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers
>>> instead of the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete
>>> double-talk seems to the standard for the Internet provider business
>>> these
>> days.
>>
>>> Comcast is a perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking,
>>> slavering, rampaging telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this
>>> consumer-crippling legislation to topple our competitive choices like
>>> Godzilla strolling through Tokyo. It's only going to get worse. Sure,
>>> there are tinfoil hats preaching ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but
>>> maybe the wingnuts are on to something, even if they're starting out
>>> from
>> pothead premises.
>>
>>> The deal that's been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move
>>> to devour Time Warner Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be
>>> superhappy about this deal, but its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the
>>> Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference held earlier
>>> this
>>> month in the highly industrious locale of Palm Beach, Fla., and
>>> enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all of us in
>>> happy-happy
>> land.
>>
>>> Newsflash: It won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into
>>> hugely-screwed-douche-broom land. The deal means that Comcast is set
>>> to service about two-thirds of the American population with both
>>> Internet and entertainment. How many of those folks are going to have
>>> an actual, practical choice?
>>> Comcast spreads it tentacles
>>> Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for only about two
>>> months,
>>> and recently leaked information on his compensation package shows
>>> that
>>> he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes through -- to
>>> the tune of about $80 million
>>> < <http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/>
>> http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/> . How
>>
>>> could he possibly be biased? I know I'm a cynical old fart, but is it
>>> loony to suspect that Comgraft may have had a hand in getting this
>>> guy
>>> a key to the executive bathroom? If there was any justice, he'd have
>>> to write a resignation letter right this minute with ink made from
>>> rectal blood and salty tears.
>>> The fate of U.S. Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With
>>> Net laws castrated as they currently are, Comcast can also opt to
>>> bully content providers and control what you can and can't access on
>>> what amounts to its Internet. In a recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed
>>> Hastings sounds like he's complaining about this trend -- never mind
>>> he's
>> already validated it.
>>
>>> Netflix complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a
>>> month ago, then paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto!
>>> Its service quality was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast
>>> paint
>>> this as a big win for consumers, but they're actually saying we're as
>>> dumb as a bag of hammers.
>>> Doesn't seem very snide or insinuatory to me.
>>> And yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly
>>> funded with appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability
>>> and
>>> with clear boundaries between public interests and private interests
>>> guarded with varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts
>>> of interest and suborning of public officials and public policy
>>> processes.  What isn't made clear in the overwhelming forces and
>>> banshee howling of support for MSism is that at its heart it is an
>>> attempt to foist the generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom
>>> policy and regulatory system on the Internet and on the world.
>>> And a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists-is this
>>> what you want for Global Internet Governance?
>>> M
>>> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>>
>>> Behalf Of McTim
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM
>>> To: Michel Gauthier
>>> Cc: 1Net List
>>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <
>> <mailto:mg at telepresse.com> mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>>> If you are trying to make an argument by quoting rfc3869 and then
>>> quoting a page from the ISOC website I think you will have to do
>>> better than that, as one is related to research and the Comcast
>>> partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.  ISOC itself
>>> doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or others do it.
>>> ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of IXPs, etc.
>>> If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities, then please
>>> state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all about.
>>> I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after sorting
>>> real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent
>>> lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
>>> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing
>>> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in
>>> support
>>> of the other MGs snide insinuations.
>>> To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
>>> This has nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they
>>> do research of the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.
>>> of which the interest in users support is characterized by its
>>>   <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy>
>> https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy page which states:
>>
>>> "On August 7, 2008, Dan Kaminsky
>>> < <http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>
>> http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html>  will release additional
>> details about these poisoning attacks. "
>>
>>> another tangental red-herring.
>>> CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS IUsers and
>>> corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed area.
>>> This doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
>> issues"
>>
>>> My question to you still stands.
>>> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>>> rgds,
>>> McTim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>>   <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org
>>>   <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>> http://1net-mail.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 kstubbs at afilias.info  Sun Mar 23 09:32:11 2014
From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 09:32:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>	<532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>	<057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>	<532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>	<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>	<6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>	<532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>	<062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>	<532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info>

Alex's response here is "spot on"

Ken Stubbs

On 3/23/2014 3:22 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil 
> society has gained the most among all sectors from the 
> multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or 
> the environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a 
> global voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with 
> influence inside our countries.
>
> Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g. 
> through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private 
> funding; the same governments most civil society is at odds with 
> (admittedly in very different ways and levels.)
>
> I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society 
> leading the effort to braid the rope with which governments would 
> gladly hang us.
>
> Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, 
> open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder 
> processes undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental 
> "democratic", when maybe two thirds of the world population do not 
> consider their condition democratic.
>
> The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after 
> stating lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign 
> spoken of - is not doing away with the multistakeholder component in 
> favor of the governmental or multilateral, but optimizing the combined 
> contributions they can make. ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of 
> learning in this respect, wasted by not being studied enough. And the 
> whole framework is vital for the NTIA functional substitution problem 
> to hand, which these discussions have long drifted away from.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says
>
>     "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
>       In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
>         varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on the other traffic on the Internet."
>
>
>     It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly
>     function, but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial
>     funding can distort Internet research, it is but obviously that it
>     has to be an absolute no no for governance functions (standards
>     making for something as socially important today as the Internet,
>     in absence of any further neutral public oversight constitutes a
>     governance function).
>
>     parminder
>
>     On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>     Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>     Michael,
>>
>>     On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>     I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
>>>     do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
>>>     Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
>>>     expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
>>>     transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
>>>     John, I think a rather significant problem.
>>     Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
>>
>>     And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
>>     all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
>>     I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
>>     how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
>>     context.
>>
>>     But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
>>     at the facts in the public record and then come back.
>>     I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
>>     found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
>>     same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
>>     pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
>>     if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
>>
>>     So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
>>     And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
>>     anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
>>     The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
>>     this paragraph.
>>
>>     S.
>>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>     Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>>     iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
>>     i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
>>     6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
>>     fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
>>     Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
>>     EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
>>     =eajt
>>     -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     discuss mailing list
>>     discuss at 1net.org  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



---
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/af458fe2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 23 09:52:40 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:22:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>
 <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
 <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Fully agree. Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still a tiny 
minority not shared by civil society in general.


On 23 March 2014 7:02:44 pm Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:

> Alex's response here is "spot on"
>
> Ken Stubbs
>
> On 3/23/2014 3:22 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> > Parminder,
> >
> > this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil 
> society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder 
> component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We 
> from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and 
> unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our 
> countries.
> >
> > Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g. 
> through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding; 
> the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very 
> different ways and levels.)
> >
> > I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading 
> the effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.
> >
> > Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, 
> open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes 
> undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe 
> two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition democratic.
> >
> > The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after 
> stating lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of 
> - is not doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the 
> governmental or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions 
> they can make. ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this 
> respect, wasted by not being studied enough. And the whole framework is 
> vital for the NTIA functional substitution problem to hand, which these 
> discussions have long drifted away from.
> >
> > Alejandro Pisanty
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says
> >
> >     "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding  
>  is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future 
> of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
> >       In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the 
> funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   
> towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
> >         varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed 
> protocols   on the other traffic on the Internet."
> >
> >
> >     It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly
> >     function, but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial
> >     funding can distort Internet research, it is but obviously that it
> >     has to be an absolute no no for governance functions (standards
> >     making for something as socially important today as the Internet,
> >     in absence of any further neutral public oversight constitutes a
> >     governance function).
> >
> >     parminder
> >
> >     On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>     Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>
> >>     Michael,
> >>
> >>     On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> >>>     I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
> >>>     do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
> >>>     Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
> >>>     expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
> >>>     transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
> >>>     John, I think a rather significant problem.
> >>     Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
> >>
> >>     And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
> >>     all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
> >>     I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
> >>     how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
> >>     context.
> >>
> >>     But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
> >>     at the facts in the public record and then come back.
> >>     I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
> >>     found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
> >>     same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
> >>     pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
> >>     if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
> >>
> >>     So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
> >>     And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
> >>     anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
> >>     The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
> >>     this paragraph.
> >>
> >>     S.
> >>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>     Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> >>
> >>     iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
> >>     i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
> >>     6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
> >>     fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
> >>     Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
> >>     EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
> >>     =eajt
> >>     -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     discuss mailing list
> >>     discuss at 1net.org  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> >>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     discuss mailing list
> >     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> >     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> > Facultad de Química UNAM
> > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> ---
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140323/9c2afc60/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Mar 23 10:28:58 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 10:28:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532EA8B7.3080302@itforchange.net>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EA8B7.3080302@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiQvAOORdMQBS2BP1m=PHKxRTND35jM-=yKzs+NUfw3vA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:26 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Alejandro
>
> It is difficult for me to discuss this issue with you when you so seamlessly
> conflate 'public' with undemocratic governments.


I do not see that pointing out that many gov's may not be entirely
"democratic" is conflation as you suggest.




 This to me betrays a
> complete lack of belief in politics and democracy - for anything that
> governs will be governments, and they are bad as per you.

He didn't say all are "bad", but today's news about the Turks blocking
Twitter is just one more piece of evidence in a long chain of events
that show that governments may not be the best vehicle for policy
making in the IG space.


 The only
> alternative being that market logic governs all aspects of social
> relationships


Really? the ONLY alternative?

Nothing in your post addressed Alx's spot on commentary that MSism
empowers CS.  Is this not what we want?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pimienta at funredes.org  Sun Mar 23 10:29:35 2014
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 10:29:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.n
 et>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>
 <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
 <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info>
 <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <E1WRjMR-0000QL-Gx@igcaucus.org>


>Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still a tiny 
>minority not shared by civil society in general.
There is absolutely no evidence which could sustain this statement; 
as a matter of fact I trust, at the countrary, it applies much better 
to your views.

The only way to assess such statements is to conduce a survey among 
the membership about some basic
questions which represent the lines of fracture of the debate here.
I would strongly suggest the new co-co team to consider seriously 
this possibility in the medium term.

However, even if such survey would be conducted (and if it is 
realized with the appropriate criterias) the results only will reflect
the position of the part of civil society which is member of this 
forum and in no way the "civil society in general" to quote your words.

The issue of outreach of the IGF towards a larger civil society 
stakeholders is another serious matter to be considered.


-- 
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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Mar 23 11:18:33 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:18:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.n
 et>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>
 <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
 <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info>
 <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <E1WRksC-0000ot-UN@igcaucus.org>

At 14:52 23/03/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Fully agree. Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still 
>a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.

You phrased it very well in using "still" as he seems to represent a 
broad part of the informed still absentees.
It would probably be advisable to consider Parminder's views are the 
people's common view, and find ways to show they are wrong at least 
in the future we foresee.
I will take an example you know well: spam. Spam (as well as other 
cyber threats) partly comes from the Internet architectural choices 
making true origin complex to identify. This architectural choices 
are technical yet they affects the life and the purse of billion people.
jfc 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Mar 23 14:04:57 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:04:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CAOxRbV-Fk6jQmaM1nYkLjnmefGoaDX29253YC+cQKNP0bhe0Sg@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>
 <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
 <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EA8B7.3080302@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV-Fk6jQmaM1nYkLjnmefGoaDX29253YC+cQKNP0bhe0Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1WRmia-0001BU-Gv@igcaucus.org>

At 17:07 23/03/2014, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>On your question of private financing of governmental committees: I 
>wish it were formulated in a way relevant to the discussions here, 
>which are about sources of funding for one of many possible 
>multstakeholder organizations - not government. Let's keep 
>discussions, even if indirectly, tethered to the design of an 
>NTIA-function substitute.

Alejandro,

I am sorry but I do not understand your logic here.
1. you want to keep discussion tethered to the design of a substitute 
of an NTIA-function, i.e. a function currently carried by an national 
executive.
2. yet you do not want to discuss the possibility (or not) of a 
private funding for that today governmental function?

If Governmental functions cannot be financed by private sources, it 
means that the NTIA-function substitute,
- either cannot be financed by private sources
- or cannot include a Government stakeholder group.

If there is no Gov stakeholder gourp, it is unlikely to have an 
independent CS group being sustained. This means that the IG mostly 
resolves to the sole Private sector MS Group.
Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
jfc



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 23 21:17:05 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:47:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <E1WRjMR-0000QL-Gx@igcaucus.org>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info> <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0!
 @hserus.n
 et> <E1WRjMR-0000QL-Gx@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <1847B594-088F-43E4-AF6C-516C9C13ED8D@hserus.net>

Quite possibly, if we, for instance, take this caucus as a representative sample of civil society [though not a sufficiently random one, I fear]

And outreach outside the rather circumscribed circles we move in is essential.  For that - APRIGF will be collocated with a network operators conference, SANOG, in New Delhi in early august.  Those who are in the region or who can make it to New Delhi please do attend.

Coming back to the topic - But really, are there all that many civil society people who prefer only public funding and governmental oversight?

--srs (iPad)

> On 23-Mar-2014, at 19:59, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.
> There is absolutely no evidence which could sustain this statement; as a matter of fact I trust, at the countrary, it applies much better to your views.
> 
> The only way to assess such statements is to conduce a survey among the membership about some basic
> questions which represent the lines of fracture of the debate here.
> I would strongly suggest the new co-co team to consider seriously this possibility in the medium term.
> 
> However, even if such survey would be conducted (and if it is realized with the appropriate criterias) the results only will reflect
> the position of the part of civil society which is member of this forum and in no way the "civil society in general" to quote your words.
> 
> The issue of outreach of the IGF towards a larger civil society stakeholders is another serious matter to be considered.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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  Sun Mar 23 21:21:13 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:51:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <E1WRksC-0000ot-UN@igcaucus.org>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info> <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0!
 @hserus.n
 et> <E1WRksC-0000ot-UN@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <88C1432A-35B6-46E6-A431-95F803E12516@hserus.net>

Because you are good enough to say that I know spam well .. I am sorry, how or why is the true origin of spam or any sort of email complex to identify?   At least from the perspective of a receiving mail system, there is the originating IP address, there are various authentication mechanisms (such as DMARC) which allow receiving systems to identify and flag / reject forged mail etc etc.

The opinion of the common people, you say, favors exclusively governmental funding and pushes for intergovernmental control (minus the USA, ideally) of the Internet?  That would be strange indeed.  And how many of the common people are informed enough on igov to form their own opinion without falling for the first inflammatory and poorly reported / slanted article they read on either side of this debate?  What is being done to reach out to them?

--srs (iPad)

> On 23-Mar-2014, at 20:48, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 
> At 14:52 23/03/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Fully agree. Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.
> 
> You phrased it very well in using "still" as he seems to represent a broad part of the informed still absentees.
> It would probably be advisable to consider Parminder's views are the people's common view, and find ways to show they are wrong at least in the future we foresee.
> I will take an example you know well: spam. Spam (as well as other cyber threats) partly comes from the Internet architectural choices making true origin complex to identify. This architectural choices are technical yet they affects the life and the purse of billion people.
> jfc 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Mar 23 21:48:33 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:48:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <1847B594-088F-43E4-AF6C-516C9C13ED8D@hserus.net>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info> <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <E1WRjMR-0000QL-Gx@igcaucus.org> <1847B594-088F-43E4-AF6C-516C9C13ED8D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiEXnWvMW_6qCvM79B+wWu+p+moavN6qStfKoe5G5mKVA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

>
> Coming back to the topic - But really, are there all that many civil society people who prefer only public funding and governmental oversight?

judging by the responses so far on the various lists this has
traversed (I note that we are only on governance list now) the answer
is "no"


>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>> On 23-Mar-2014, at 19:59, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.
>> There is absolutely no evidence which could sustain this statement; as a matter of fact I trust, at the countrary, it applies much better to your views.
>>
>> The only way to assess such statements is to conduce a survey among the membership about some basic
>> questions which represent the lines of fracture of the debate here.
>> I would strongly suggest the new co-co team to consider seriously this possibility in the medium term.
>>
>> However, even if such survey would be conducted (and if it is realized with the appropriate criterias) the results only will reflect
>> the position of the part of civil society which is member of this forum and in no way the "civil society in general" to quote your words.
>>
>> The issue of outreach of the IGF towards a larger civil society stakeholders is another serious matter to be considered.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>



-- 
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 Malcolm.id.au  Sun Mar 23 22:47:52 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:47:52 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <88C1432A-35B6-46E6-A431-95F803E12516@hserus.net>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info> <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0!
 @hserus.n
 et> <E1WRksC-0000ot-UN@igcaucus.org> <88C1432A-35B6-46E6-A431-95F803E12516@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <70F0E57A-CE6B-48B8-9CEE-7E9BA03DCE65@Malcolm.id.au>

On 24 Mar 2014, at 9:21 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Because you are good enough to say that I know spam well .. I am sorry, how or why is the true origin of spam or any sort of email complex to identify?   At least from the perspective of a receiving mail system, there is the originating IP address, there are various authentication mechanisms (such as DMARC) which allow receiving systems to identify and flag / reject forged mail etc etc.

What Jefsey's point may have been (not trying to put words into his mouth, but this is my interpretation) is that one of the characteristic faults of the technical community is that it is prone to uncritically laud the Internet's architecture as being wholly beneficial, neutral in terms of welfare distribution, and fully supportive of democratic ideals (or worse, a substitute for democratic ideals).  In reality the effects of those architectural choices are very much more of a mixed bag, with some gains and some losses, unequally distributed, and with limited accountability to those affected by them.  So the simple example (perhaps) being given is that is that spam is a problem that was enabled by the architectural choices made by the Internet technical community, the very same choices that also provide us with many positive benefits such as resilience against censorship (but also other negatives such as vulnerability to surveillance).

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140324/14d02f40/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 23 22:59:00 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:29:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <70F0E57A-CE6B-48B8-9CEE-7E9BA03DCE65@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info> <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0!
 @hserus.n
 et> <E1WRksC-0000ot-UN@igcaucus.org> <88C1432A-35B6-46E6-A431-95F803E12516@hserus.net> <70F0E57A-CE6B-48B8-9CEE-7E9BA03DCE65@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <A0821B79-2CA2-457D-B91C-D4677100C643@hserus.net>

That is of course a hangover from an era when the internet was restricted to a very small, and professionally responsible group of users from the academic and defense communities.  It was a time when innovation and openness to drive innovation were prized above all else, so security was an afterthought, and still being bolted in as we speak - because "rip and replace" is just not a viable option on a currently running system.

One thing you learn about actually working on any sort of architecture now, if not a couple of decades before, is to have a clear view of its benefits and potential pitfalls, and how it can be abused versus how it can be used.  And how to mitigate the abuse without destroying the utility of the product for its legitimate users.

More than anything else, it is a choice that the developers of, for example, Tor, have had to make and live with because the very same technology that allows a political dissident anonymity from the regime he opposes also enables child abusers and drug dealers.

--srs (iPad)

> On 24-Mar-2014, at 8:17, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Mar 2014, at 9:21 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Because you are good enough to say that I know spam well .. I am sorry, how or why is the true origin of spam or any sort of email complex to identify?   At least from the perspective of a receiving mail system, there is the originating IP address, there are various authentication mechanisms (such as DMARC) which allow receiving systems to identify and flag / reject forged mail etc etc.
> 
> What Jefsey's point may have been (not trying to put words into his mouth, but this is my interpretation) is that one of the characteristic faults of the technical community is that it is prone to uncritically laud the Internet's architecture as being wholly beneficial, neutral in terms of welfare distribution, and fully supportive of democratic ideals (or worse, a substitute for democratic ideals).  In reality the effects of those architectural choices are very much more of a mixed bag, with some gains and some losses, unequally distributed, and with limited accountability to those affected by them.  So the simple example (perhaps) being given is that is that spam is a problem that was enabled by the architectural choices made by the Internet technical community, the very same choices that also provide us with many positive benefits such as resilience against censorship (but also other negatives such as vulnerability to surveillance).
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 23 23:39:39 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:09:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiQvAOORdMQBS2BP1m=PHKxRTND35jM-=yKzs+NUfw3vA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com> <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EA8B7.3080302@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiQvAOORdMQBS2BP1m=PHKxRTND35jM-=yKzs+NUfw3vA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532FA8FB.6050604@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:58 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:26 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> Alejandro
>>
>> It is difficult for me to discuss this issue with you when you so seamlessly
>> conflate 'public' with undemocratic governments.
>
> I do not see that pointing out that many gov's may not be entirely
> "democratic" is conflation as you suggest.

My email talked 'only' about public funding of governance functions... 
Alejandro's response to that email, while beginning with a sense of 
amazement, speaks 'only' of undemocratic nature of governments and civil 
society's problems with them in this regard... For convenience I cut 
paste below my original email in entirely, and relevant parts of 
Alejandro's response. To me, it is clear that 'public' of public funding 
has simply been conflated with supposed undemocratic-ness of 
governments. parminder

_______

It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, 
but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort 
Internet research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no 
no for governance functions (standards making for something as socially 
important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral 
public oversight constitutes a governance function).  (parminder)

Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g. 
through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private 
funding; the same governments most civil society is at odds with 
(admittedly in very different ways and levels.)

I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading 
the effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.

Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, 
open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder 
processes undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental 
"democratic", when maybe two thirds of the world population do not 
consider their condition democratic. (Alejandro)




>
>
>
>
>   This to me betrays a
>> complete lack of belief in politics and democracy - for anything that
>> governs will be governments, and they are bad as per you.
> He didn't say all are "bad", but today's news about the Turks blocking
> Twitter is just one more piece of evidence in a long chain of events
> that show that governments may not be the best vehicle for policy
> making in the IG space.
>
>
>   The only
>> alternative being that market logic governs all aspects of social
>> relationships
>
> Really? the ONLY alternative?
>
> Nothing in your post addressed Alx's spot on commentary that MSism
> empowers CS.  Is this not what we want?
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140324/e471e904/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar 23 23:51:48 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:21:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiEXnWvMW_6qCvM79B+wWu+p+moavN6qStfKoe5G5mKVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com> <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie> <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie> <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org> <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com> <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net> <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com> <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info> <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <E1WRjMR-0000QL-Gx@igcaucus.org> <1847B594-088F-43E4-AF6C-516C9C13ED8D@hserus.net> <CACAaNxiEXnWvMW_6qCvM79B+wWu+p+moavN6qStfKoe5G5mKVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532FABD4.9050507@itforchange.net>


On Monday 24 March 2014 07:18 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>> Coming back to the topic - But really, are there all that many civil society people who prefer only public funding and governmental oversight?
> judging by the responses so far on the various lists this has
> traversed (I note that we are only on governance list now) the answer
> is "no"

Again, public funding is fully conflated with governmental oversight.

The Just Net Coalition presented a proposal for ICANN oversight which

(1) does not consist of governmental oversight, but oversight by a 
Technical Oversight and Advisory Board with a composition that is 
regionally balanced and consists of techno-political membership - people 
with technical expertise and standing, but will some degree of political 
processes around their selection. Pl see the proposal at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 
.

(2) Seeks that this structure, which patently cannot be called 
governmental oversight, be publicly funded. In this regard, the public 
funds are the tax that ICANN collects from global Internet website 
owners in form of a part of the domain name fees. (There could be other 
ways how public financie for global IG functions can be organsied, say 
0.01 percent tax of global e-commerce, which is collected and managed by 
a body with clear rules regarding collection and allocation.)

Therefore, as spoken of in my original email, dismissive-ness about non 
market logic based systems of governance, or any kind of democratic 
governance systems, continues by maligning and distorting well 
-established political concepts, and such other devices...

parminder
>   
>
>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>>> On 23-Mar-2014, at 19:59, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are still a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.
>>> There is absolutely no evidence which could sustain this statement; as a matter of fact I trust, at the countrary, it applies much better to your views.
>>>
>>> The only way to assess such statements is to conduce a survey among the membership about some basic
>>> questions which represent the lines of fracture of the debate here.
>>> I would strongly suggest the new co-co team to consider seriously this possibility in the medium term.
>>>
>>> However, even if such survey would be conducted (and if it is realized with the appropriate criterias) the results only will reflect
>>> the position of the part of civil society which is member of this forum and in no way the "civil society in general" to quote your words.
>>>
>>> The issue of outreach of the IGF towards a larger civil society stakeholders is another serious matter to be considered.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Mar 24 01:07:01 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 01:07:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <532FA8FB.6050604@itforchange.net>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com> <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info> <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com> <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com> <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie> <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie> <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EA8B7.3080302@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiQvAOORdMQBS2BP1m=PHKxRTND35jM-=yKzs+NUfw3vA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532FA8FB.6050604@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg-kb9wsixu+kA5Qx2Ta0zx9qKwHFrHqMrmcP1TvvZ8uQ@mail.gmail.com>

<I see we have added 1net back in the cc list, now trimmed once again
to avoid poisoning that well>

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:39 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:58 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:26 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
> Alejandro
>
> It is difficult for me to discuss this issue with you when you so seamlessly
> conflate 'public' with undemocratic governments.
>
> I do not see that pointing out that many gov's may not be entirely
> "democratic" is conflation as you suggest.
>
>
> My email talked 'only' about public funding of governance functions...
> Alejandro's response to that email, while beginning with a sense of
> amazement, speaks 'only' of undemocratic nature of governments

no it doesn't, this is your misinterpretation of what he said...

His main point was that MSism empowers CS, and it is sub-optimal for us to
insist that governments take policy making ability away from us.

At least, that is what i got out of his mail.

 and civil
> society's problems with them in this regard... For convenience I cut paste
> below my original email in entirely, and relevant parts of Alejandro's
> response.

only the parts relevant to your narrative you mean.



>To me, it is clear that 'public' of public funding has simply been
> conflated with supposed undemocratic-ness of governments. parminder
>
>


That is not at all clear to me.



-- 
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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Mar 24 11:25:12 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:25:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for Surveillance
 Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAebkYAm1pwJvqzG=z0THu64su7UNhVxYmXCjhHh3hKHRg@mail.gmail.com>

sorry for cross-posting, but this might be of the interest of folks in
these lists

  *For Immediate Release*
Monday, March 24, 2014
*PRESS RELEASE* *New Report: Current Export Controls for Surveillance Tools
are Outdated and Ineffective*

*WASHINGTON, DC *-- Authoritarian governments have abused surveillance
technologies for political control, the suppression of the media and civil
society, and other violations of fundamental human rights.  Today, New
America's Open Technology Institute - in collaboration with Privacy
International in the United Kingdom, and Digitale Gesellschaft in Germany -
released a new report that examines export controls as a policy solution to
this problem.

Government regulation on the export of surveillance technology could help
prevent such technology from being acquired by end users with dubious human
rights records. The report provides an in-depth policy and technological
analysis of export control regimes in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the
United States, and finds that existing export control regulations have
become out-dated and have not kept up with new technology.

"It is clear that export controls need to be updated. The new controls on
surveillance technology agreed on among 41 states through the Wassenaar
Arrangement in December are an opportunity to do that," said Tim Maurer,
Research Fellow with New America's Open Technology Institute. "The U.S.
government has a unique chance when it implements the changes to set a
positive example for other countries."

Several governments have made efforts to impose export controls on
surveillance technologies, but a coordinated multilateral approach will be
necessary for export controls to be effective. That is why this report was
developed as a joint project among three organizations in three different
countries with a significant share of this market. "This report highlights
not only existing efforts to ensure this thriving industry is made
accountable, but also offers a blueprint forward," said Edin Omanovic,
Research Officer at Privacy International and co-author of the report.

The report is available online and was written by *Tim Maurer**,** Edin
Omanovic, and Ben Wagner. *The authors are available for interviews and
background briefings.

To read the full report, *Uncontrolled Global Surveillance: Updating Export
Controls to the Digital Age*, please click
here<http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/uncontrolled_global_surveillance_updating_export_controls_to_the_digital_age>
.
*Expert Contact*
Tim Maurer
Research Fellow, Open Technology Institute, New America
(202) 596-3612
maurer at newamerica.org <laitinen at newamerica.net>

*Media Contact*
Jenny Mallamo
Media Relations Associate, New America
(202) 596-3368
mallamo at newamerica.org <vanderlinde at newamerica.net>

###

*About New America*
New America is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that
invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of
challenges facing the United States. To learn more, please visit us online
at www.newamerica.org <http://www.newamerica.net/>or follow us on Twitter
@NewAmerica <https://twitter.com/NewAmerica>.

*About the Open Technology Institute*
The Open Technology Institute (OTI) is a global pioneer in developing
innovative communications technologies and policies to enable communities
to fully participate in the global economy, and freely shape their
democracies. To learn more, please visit us online at
http://oti.newamerica.org and on Twitter @OTI <https://twitter.com/OTI>.





--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140324/c85f1c0b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar 24 11:25:42 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:25:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: [discuss]
 Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
Message-ID: <0c1e01cf4775$55676960$00363c20$@gmail.com>

I think Alejandro’s note below illustrates one of the fundamental
limitations of the multistakeholder approach.

 

Alejandro states: this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to
amaze me: civil society has gained the most among all sectors from the
multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the
environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a global
voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside
our countries.

 

I don’t wish to comment on the truth or falsity of this statement.  However,
I would note that in the midst of the recitation of those involved in these
processes and the “gains” made by Civil Society interests (and presumably
others) I must ask what has happened to the “public interest” i.e. the
interests of all over and above the individual sectional interests;  or the
interests of other non-represented groups in these processes. 

 

For example, the Community Informatics community of which I am a part,
concerned as it with the interests of grassroots communities particularly
the marginalized, has only a partially overlapping set of
concerns/”interests” and particularly priorities with “civil society” (as
for example is indicated by the issues presented by CS in Tunis where the CS
priority was focused on Human Rights while the CI community was rather more
concerned with access and social justice issues). Given the refusal of
“Civil Society” to include CI and its concerns within its framework and the
refusal of those acting as stakeholder gatekeepers for current MS processes
to allow for an independent status for the CI community Alejandro’s
self-congratulatory statement above rings rather hollow.

 

But over and above this is the matter of who and how the public interest is
represented—for example in ensuring that processes are fair, transparent and
accountable and not subverted or suborned to individual or private
interests; for ensuring a necessary range of participation including among
those who might, for a variety of reasons, not be actively pursuing such
participation; for including normative diversity (including those supportive
of social justice) as well as identity based diversity; and for representing
the Internet as a global public commons among others.

 

I remain to be informed as to how these matters will be resolved through the
creation of a “multistakeholder consensus” or through the concatenation of
sectional interests which the current description of “multistakeholderism”
is presenting as the means by through which outcome decisions are obtained.

 

Mike 

 

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Alejandro Pisanty
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:22 AM

 


To: parminder
Cc: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

Parminder,

 

this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil
society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder
component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We
from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and
unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our
countries.

 

Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g.
through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding;
the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very
different ways and levels.) 

 

I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading the
effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.

 

Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, open,
evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes
undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe
two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition
democratic. 

 

The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after stating
lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of - is not
doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the governmental
or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions they can make.
ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this respect, wasted by
not being studied enough. And the whole framework is vital for the NTIA
functional substitution problem to hand, which these discussions have long
drifted away from.

 

Alejandro Pisanty

 

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says

"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is
the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of
the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. 
 In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding
source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards
or against the development of open standards, or taking
   varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on
the other traffic on the Internet."


It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, but
governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort Internet
research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no no for
governance functions (standards making for something as socially important
today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public oversight
constitutes a governance function). 

parminder 

On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
 
Michael,
 
On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
John, I think a rather significant problem.

Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
 
And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
context.
 
But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
at the facts in the public record and then come back.
I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
 
So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
this paragraph.
 
S.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
=eajt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 

 


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss





 

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140324/c8df4706/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Mar 24 11:30:54 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:30:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <70F0E57A-CE6B-48B8-9CEE-7E9BA03DCE65@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <6B3E8613-BF81-477F-B3AB-7B2E18598430@virtualized.org>
 <532E3159.9020800@cs.tcd.ie>
 <062301cf4636$72739730$575ac590$@gmail.com>
 <532E3A22.8020202@cs.tcd.ie>
 <532E8657.9040602@itforchange.net>
 <CAOxRbV96+hXRaeetx0VVVdvFTNA1rsvXpFenbQYoZ3XfnhhONw@mail.gmail.com>
 <532EE25B.8060004@afilias.info>
 <144ef36e0b8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <E1WRksC-0000ot-UN@igcaucus.org>
 <88C1432A-35B6-46E6-A431-95F803E12516@hserus.net>
 <70F0E57A-CE6B-48B8-9CEE-7E9BA03DCE65@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <E1WS6me-0006YO-QE@igcaucus.org>

Dear Suresh,
I see the good response Jeremy made. I take back the full thread for 
it to be clearer.

>> > At 14:52 23/03/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> >> Fully agree. Which is why I am glad that  parminders views are 
>> still a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.
>> > You phrased it very well in using "still" as he seems to 
>> represent a broad part of the informed still absentees.
>> > It would probably be advisable to consider Parminder's views are 
>> the people's common view, and find ways to show they are wrong at 
>> least in the future we foresee.
>> > I will take an example you know well: spam. Spam (as well as 
>> other cyber threats) partly comes from the Internet architectural 
>> choices making true origin complex to identify. These 
>> architectural choices are technical yet they affects the life and 
>> the purse of billion people.

>At 03:47 24/03/2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>On 24 Mar 2014, at 9:21 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> > Because you are good enough to say that I know spam well .. I am 
>> sorry, how or why is the true origin of spam or any sort of email 
>> complex to identify?   At least from the perspective of a 
>> receiving mail system, there is the originating IP address, there 
>> are various authentication mechanisms (such as DMARC) which allow 
>> receiving systems to identify and flag / reject forged mail etc etc.
>
>What Jefsey's point may have been (not trying to put words into his 
>mouth, but this is my interpretation) is that one of the 
>characteristic faults of the technical community is that it is prone 
>to uncritically laud the Internet's architecture as being wholly 
>beneficial, neutral in terms of welfare distribution, and fully 
>supportive of democratic ideals (or worse, a substitute for 
>democratic ideals).  In reality the effects of those architectural 
>choices are very much more of a mixed bag, with some gains and some 
>losses, unequally distributed, and with limited accountability to 
>those affected by them.  So the simple example (perhaps) being given 
>is that is that spam is a problem that was enabled by the 
>architectural choices made by the Internet technical community, the 
>very same choices that also provide us with many positive benefits 
>such as resilience against censorship (but also other negatives such 
>as vulnerability to surveillance).

>On 24 Mar 2014, at 9:21 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote
>The opinion of the common people, you say, favors exclusively 
>governmental funding and pushes for intergovernmental control (minus 
>the USA, ideally) of the Internet?  That would be strange 
>indeed.  And how many of the common people are informed enough on 
>igov to form their own opinion without falling for the first 
>inflammatory and poorly reported / slanted article they read on 
>either side of this debate?  What is being done to reach out to them?

I did not say common people. There is no need to reach out to those I 
discuss: the informed ones. These are the people I know because they 
send me mails as a facilitator for the  IUCG at IETF which has also the 
task to interface them with the IETF if they wishes. I must say that 
they are generally in agreement with the IAB evaluation of RFC 3869. 
Obviously I try to insist on the fact that non-commercial 
contributions the IAB ask for includes FLOSS, as I do. But I must say 
that FLOSS people are more interested in applications. Network lead 
users have not real time to spare to discuss standardization.

I suppose that the USG will now feel more free to propose a strategic 
global development plan for a new network technology, leaving the 
industry and ICANN to take care of the Internet layers? For example: 
in 2014 it is http://www.darpa.mil/cybergrandchallenge/, may be a new 
architecture for the digisphere in 2015?

jfc



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar 24 12:37:56 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:37:56 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was
 RE: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6hQHPx8-Fp2JVmyEytLRFhxk2U3xt3o4jb2czEEL5OYig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0c1e01cf4775$55676960$00363c20$@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6hQHPx8-Fp2JVmyEytLRFhxk2U3xt3o4jb2czEEL5OYig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0ccd01cf477f$6a79ce60$3f6d6b20$@gmail.com>

Seun,

 

Could I respectfully suggest that you do some searching in the archives of
this list and online where you will find my position on these matters,
information on the Community Informatics community and other matters in
which you seem to have an interest rather extensively presented including
through my blog.

 

For a very quick and dirty summary/update please see the below


 

M

 

From: Newmedia at aol.com

Subject: Fwd: <nettime> an historic retreat

Date: March 24, 2014 at 8:45:38 AM EDT

To: dave at farber.net

 

For IP (if you'd like) . . . 

  _____  

From: gurstein at gmail.com
To: nettime-l at kein.org
Sent: 3/23/2014 2:38:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: <nettime> an historic retreat

 

Dear Nettimers:

There is a very much bigger game afoot where issues concerning the
NTIA/ICANN etc.etc. are mere pawns on the chessboard.

The NTIA announcement has to be seen in the context of the NetMundial
meeting to be convened in Brazil at the end of April and where the NTIA
announcement pre-empted a (quite likely and more or less global) agreement
on a rather worse set of recommendations from the US's perspective.

The key element in the NTIA/USG announcement was not the preamble but rather
the first bullet point i.e. the determination that the transfer would only
take place in a manner which would "Support and enhance the multistakeholder
model". This should be seen in the context of the USG's statement to the
NetMundial concerning its position on the future of Internet Governance
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm where
"multistakeholderism" is mentioned 12 times and "democracy" is referred to
once in passing.

So what exactly is "multistakeholderism"? Well that isn't quite clear and no
one (least of all the US State Department) has pointed to a useful
definition.  

But whatever it is, a key element is that all the relevant "stakeholders"
including the major Internet corporations get to sit around promoting their
"stakes" and making Internet policy through some sort of consensus process
where all the participants have an "equal" say and where rules of things
like procedure, conflict of interest etc.etc. all seem to be made up as they
go along. Also, it is becoming clear that the various proponents of MSism
see it as a replacement for democratic processes of Internet governance
(continuously misrepresented as being completely aligned with multilateral
processes). Clearly the major Internet corporations, the US government and
their allies in the technical and civil society communities are quite
enthusiastic -- getting to sit around and jointly work out things like
frameworks, principles and rules (or not) for privacy and security,
taxation, copyright etc. in an Internet enabled environment--pretty heady
stuff.  Whether the outcome in any sense is supportive of the broad public
interest and an Internet for the Common Good, well that isn't so clear.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org
[mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Felix Stalder
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:59 AM
To: nettime-l at kein.org
Subject: Re: <nettime> an historic retreat


Hi Dan,

I must say, I've never really understood the politics around ICANN. That has
always been too arcane for me. So I don't understand this development
either.
<...>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org

 

David Farber

Carnegie Mellon University  Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies
University of Pennsylvania Alfred Fitler Moore  Emeritus Professor of
Telecommunications

University of Delaware Distinguished Policy Fellow 

Board Member -- EFF, EPIC and ISOC

Board Emeritus  Stevens Institute of  Technology

Cell: +1-412-726-9889

Google Voice: (864) 8Farber

Email: dave at farber.net

Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897 F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:44 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast
undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

Hello Michael,

On a serious note, at times I get confused on your views. Initially indicate
the the USG (which is basically any typical govt) is the issue that should
be removed from the process and thank goodness the USG heard and responded
positively. Now you are saying the  multistakeholder approach is also not
it, then what is the solution?
You are giving example of organisation you belong (which for instance I
don't know and can't find foot print of it's activities online) have you
tried to make your contribution known and was kicked back?
I think comments like this is what makes the whole multistakeholder approach
more complicated. I know you probably have more experience than I do,
however I think it may be good to not further complicate things for those
who are trying to understand/educate themselves through this medium.
It will be more constructive to read from you, what you think is the problem
and how to fix it. Than just sticking with the problem. This is why I
appreciate Milton's approach (which does not necessarily mean it's the
solution, but he has put something on the table) and I can say I learnt from
it.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 24 Mar 2014 23:26, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

I think Alejandro’s note below illustrates one of the fundamental
limitations of the multistakeholder approach.

 

Alejandro states: this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to
amaze me: civil society has gained the most among all sectors from the
multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the
environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a global
voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside
our countries.

 

I don’t wish to comment on the truth or falsity of this statement.  However,
I would note that in the midst of the recitation of those involved in these
processes and the “gains” made by Civil Society interests (and presumably
others) I must ask what has happened to the “public interest” i.e. the
interests of all over and above the individual sectional interests;  or the
interests of other non-represented groups in these processes. 

 

For example, the Community Informatics community of which I am a part,
concerned as it with the interests of grassroots communities particularly
the marginalized, has only a partially overlapping set of
concerns/”interests” and particularly priorities with “civil society” (as
for example is indicated by the issues presented by CS in Tunis where the CS
priority was focused on Human Rights while the CI community was rather more
concerned with access and social justice issues). Given the refusal of
“Civil Society” to include CI and its concerns within its framework and the
refusal of those acting as stakeholder gatekeepers for current MS processes
to allow for an independent status for the CI community Alejandro’s
self-congratulatory statement above rings rather hollow.

 

But over and above this is the matter of who and how the public interest is
represented—for example in ensuring that processes are fair, transparent and
accountable and not subverted or suborned to individual or private
interests; for ensuring a necessary range of participation including among
those who might, for a variety of reasons, not be actively pursuing such
participation; for including normative diversity (including those supportive
of social justice) as well as identity based diversity; and for representing
the Internet as a global public commons among others.

 

I remain to be informed as to how these matters will be resolved through the
creation of a “multistakeholder consensus” or through the concatenation of
sectional interests which the current description of “multistakeholderism”
is presenting as the means by through which outcome decisions are obtained.

 

Mike 

 

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Alejandro Pisanty
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:22 AM

 


To: parminder
Cc: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

Parminder,

 

this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil
society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder
component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We
from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and
unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our
countries.

 

Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g.
through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding;
the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very
different ways and levels.) 

 

I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading the
effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.

 

Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, open,
evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes
undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe
two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition
democratic. 

 

The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after stating
lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of - is not
doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the governmental
or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions they can make.
ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this respect, wasted by
not being studied enough. And the whole framework is vital for the NTIA
functional substitution problem to hand, which these discussions have long
drifted away from.

 

Alejandro Pisanty

 

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says

"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is
the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of
the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. 
 In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding
source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards
or against the development of open standards, or taking
   varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on
the other traffic on the Internet."


It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, but
governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort Internet
research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no no for
governance functions (standards making for something as socially important
today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public oversight
constitutes a governance function). 

parminder 

On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
 
Michael,
 
On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
John, I think a rather significant problem.

Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
 
And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
context.
 
 
But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
at the facts in the public record and then come back.
I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
 
So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
this paragraph.
 
S.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
=eajt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 

 


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss





 

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 <tel:%2B52-1-5541444475>  FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 <tel:%2B525541444475>  DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
<tel:%2B525541444475> 
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140324/3da7b442/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Mon Mar 24 19:04:27 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:04:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Paper: The 6th IEEE International Workshop on
 Security Aspects of Process and Services Engineering (SAPSE2014)
Message-ID: <034f01cf47b5$68ec19f0$3ac44dd0$@unimi.it>

=========================================================================

Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP

=========================================================================

PAPER SUBMISSION  EXTENDED DEADLINE April  7, 2014

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               SAPSE 2014

The 6th IEEE International Workshop on Security Aspects of Process and
Services Engineering 

 

(http://compsac.cs.iastate.edu/sapse2014.php) 

 

Held in conjunction with COMPSAC, the IEEE Signature Conference on
Computers, Software, & Applications.

COMPSAC 2014 will be held in Västerås, Sweden - July 21-25, 2014

............................................................................
.........

Goal of the workshop

--------------------

The area of processes and services engineering is a very attractive field
for innovative research, particularly in the last years, when the
outsourcing of business processes on the cloud has become a popular paradigm
for both small and big companies.  Using platforms provided by third parties
as a remote runtime environment/infrastructure is posing new important
challenges, especially considering the security aspects, since the resulting
software systems are expected to function correctly and resist also to
malicious attacks under different changing threat scenarios. New techniques
and methodologies are needed to be able to build better, more robust and
more trusted systems, where security is taken into account and integrated in
the whole  design process since the very first stages.

 

Researchers and practitioners all over the world, from both academia and
industry, working in the areas of process engineering, service-oriented
computing, and security are invited to discuss state of the art solutions,
novel issues, recent developments, applications, methodologies, techniques,
experience reports, and tools for the development and use of secure service
oriented systems. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the
following:

 

•             Trust, security, and privacy in cloud and/or service based
systems

•             Secure business process composition

•             Security of business processes over the cloud

•             Risk management in business processes

•             Trust and policy management in clouds

•             Service dependability, survivability, and reliability

•             Design and development of secure services 

•             Security specification of service oriented systems

•             Certification of cloud-based systems

•             Verification, validation and testing of security properties 

 

 

Paper Submission

----------------

 

Papers must be submitted electronically via the submission page. The format
of submitted papers should follow guidelines for  IEEE Computer Society
Press Proceedings. All papers will be carefully reviewed by at least three
reviewers. Papers can be submitted as regular papers (six pages) and the
acceptance will depend upon reviewer feedback. All accepted papers will be
published in the electronic conference proceedings by the IEEE Computer
Society, indexed through INSPEC and EI Index (Elsevier's Eng. Inf. Index),
and automatically included in the IEEE Digital Library. At least one of the
authors of each accepted paper must register as a full participant of
COMPSAC for the paper to be included in the proceedings. Each accepted paper
must be presented in person by an author.

Workshops Program Deadlines

---------------------------

• April  7, 2014: Extended Deadline for paper submission

• April 20, 2014: Decision notification (electronic)

• April 28, 2014: Camera-ready due

 

 

Organizer

---------

Stelvio Cimato

Università degli studi di Milano

Email: stelvio.cimato at unimi.it 

 

Program Committee

-----------------

Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany

Nadia Bennani, University of Lyon, France

Carlo Blundo, University of Salerno, Italy

Chiara Braghin, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Isao Echizen,National Institute of Informatics, Japan

Clemente Galdi, University of Naples, Italy

Hejiao Huang, Harbin Institute of Technology, China

Fuyuki Ishikawa, National Institute of Informatics, Japan

Meiko Jensen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection, Germany

Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany

Dimitris Karagiannis, University of Vienna, Austria

Michiharu Kudo, IBM, Japan

George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK

Stefan Thalmann, University of Innsbruck

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/0ec89ef3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Mar 24 20:33:16 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:33:16 +1100
Subject: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for
 Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAebkYAm1pwJvqzG=z0THu64su7UNhVxYmXCjhHh3hKHRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAebkYAm1pwJvqzG=z0THu64su7UNhVxYmXCjhHh3hKHRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C76AFB11252B45A38EE4037C2B0CECE5@Toshiba>

Hi Carolina (copies to multiple lists taken out)

This was an interesting post, but to me a surprising one given its source. >From what I understand (from Wikipedia)


The Open Technology Institute (OTI) is the technology program of the New America Foundation. OTI formulates policy and regulatory reforms to support open architectures and open-source innovations and facilitates the development and implementation of open technologies and communications networks.


This paper (I hope!) has nothing to do with open architectures and open-source innovation. Both would be severely compromised by any sort of political or moral judgements on the use of any sort of software as advanced in this paper.

Leaving aside the vexed moral question of sales of surveillance software and any limitations on such sales, I wonder if there is any link here to open source and open architecture considerations? I am just wondering why such a paper emanates from such an organisation.

Ian Peter

PS Australia perhaps should be added to the list of countries who should be forbidden use of surveillance software after using it to advance commercial offshore oil deals with the poor neighbouring country of East Timor (not to mention using it to tap the phone of the wife of the President of Indonesia). But then, I guess we had better leave privacy out of any considerations on limitations of software sales here...


  

From: Carolina Rossini 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:25 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; discuss at 1net.org ; ibdi_lista at yahoogrupos.com.br 
Cc: Tim Maurer 
Subject: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective


sorry for cross-posting, but this might be of the interest of folks in these lists 



For Immediate Release
Monday, March 24, 2014

PRESS RELEASE
New Report: Current Export Controls for Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
WASHINGTON, DC — Authoritarian governments have abused surveillance technologies for political control, the suppression of the media and civil society, and other violations of fundamental human rights.  Today, New America’s Open Technology Institute – in collaboration with Privacy International in the United Kingdom, and Digitale Gesellschaft in Germany – released a new report that examines export controls as a policy solution to this problem.

Government regulation on the export of surveillance technology could help prevent such technology from being acquired by end users with dubious human rights records. The report provides an in-depth policy and technological analysis of export control regimes in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and finds that existing export control regulations have become out-dated and have not kept up with new technology.

"It is clear that export controls need to be updated. The new controls on surveillance technology agreed on among 41 states through the Wassenaar Arrangement in December are an opportunity to do that,” said Tim Maurer, Research Fellow with New America's Open Technology Institute. “The U.S. government has a unique chance when it implements the changes to set a positive example for other countries."

Several governments have made efforts to impose export controls on surveillance technologies, but a coordinated multilateral approach will be necessary for export controls to be effective. That is why this report was developed as a joint project among three organizations in three different countries with a significant share of this market. “This report highlights not only existing efforts to ensure this thriving industry is made accountable, but also offers a blueprint forward,” said Edin Omanovic, Research Officer at Privacy International and co-author of the report.

The report is available online and was written by Tim Maurer, Edin Omanovic, and Ben Wagner. The authors are available for interviews and background briefings.

To read the full report, Uncontrolled Global Surveillance: Updating Export Controls to the Digital Age, please click here.

Expert Contact
Tim Maurer
Research Fellow, Open Technology Institute, New America
(202) 596-3612
mailto:laitinen at newamerica.net

Media Contact
Jenny Mallamo
Media Relations Associate, New America
(202) 596-3368
mailto:vanderlinde at newamerica.net
###

About New America
New America is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States. To learn more, please visit us online at www.newamerica.org or follow us on Twitter @NewAmerica.

About the Open Technology Institute
The Open Technology Institute (OTI) is a global pioneer in developing innovative communications technologies and policies to enable communities to fully participate in the global economy, and freely shape their democracies. To learn more, please visit us online at http://oti.newamerica.org and on Twitter @OTI.






-- 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/e5875a34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar 24 21:13:57 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:13:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>	<532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>	<057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>	<532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>	<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <0f5201cf47c7$80e096a0$82a1c3e0$@gmail.com>

Barry,

(As an aside a wise person once told me that drawing analogies online is
generally a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, so let me withdraw my attempt
in this instance... :(

And let me say that I agree with this/your point "Merely having a pecuniary
interest in a result is not a /prima facie/ justification for
disenfranchisement", however, I don't believe my comments were suggesting
this although I can understand that possible interpretation.

However, could I add that having a role in matters where significant public
interests are under review is sufficient to require the implementation of
procedures and processes to ensure that the public's interests are protected
including from the possibility of misdirection, suborning, capture, and
similar actual or potential derelictions.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs at world.std.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:02 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: 'Stephen Farrell'; 'McTim'; 'bestbits'; '1Net List';
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?


On March 22, 2014 at 16:18 gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) wrote:
 >
 > Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of
global  > standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for
example;  > or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board
of one of the  > key technical bodies making recommendations towards those
standards?

I'm not sure this analogy is apt, as much as I sympathize with the
sentiment.

This is more like Coke having membership on the board of a group which is
setting standards for grocery shelving. It probably exists.

Surely Coke would have a legitimate interest just like anyone else involved
(supermarkets, delivery companies, etc.) And that interest may well be
self-interested but there's no obvious reason why it should not be involved
or why this would be bad.

Now, if Coke used that position to favor their bottle sizes over that of
competitors that might be a problem. But that would be the end result of a
lopsided or corrupted process rather than a mistake letting them into the
room.

But the purpose of the IETF et al is not to stand between the public and the
manufacturers.

Most of the IETF's work is to standardize practices among manufacturers
(providers, etc.) in the belief that this produces a result in the public's
interest by improving interoperability.

I don't believe I am splitting a hair: I think there is a time and place for
consumer advocacy groups, and industry advocacy groups, and standards
development bodies.

Their interests often overlap in significant ways but much of their effort
is disjoint.

Put simply: Merely having a pecuniary interest in a result is not a /prima
facie/ justification for disenfranchisement.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR,
Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 21:13:57 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:13:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was
 RE: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6g3JUJnTJ1F2EE4_us=Eq8Eh9X2xzq_VF8GcRFNdsQKoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0c1e01cf4775$55676960$00363c20$@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6hQHPx8-Fp2JVmyEytLRFhxk2U3xt3o4jb2czEEL5OYig@mail.gmail.com> <0ccd01cf477f$6a79ce60$3f6d6b20$@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6g3JUJnTJ1F2EE4_us=Eq8Eh9X2xzq_VF8GcRFNdsQKoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0f4d01cf47c7$7f8d1490$7ea73db0$@gmail.com>

As a matter of fact I don’t agree that “multistakeholderism is the way
forward” at least not in its current undefined and poorly elaborated form
with no evident safeguards for the public interest.  

 

M 

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:01 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; discuss at 1net.org; Civil Society Internet Governance
Caucus - IGC
Subject: Re: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast
undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

Hello Micheal,

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:37 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

Seun,

 

Could I respectfully suggest that you do some searching in the archives of
this list and online where you will find my position on these matters,
information on the Community Informatics community and other matters in
which you seem to have an interest rather extensively presented including
through my blog.

 

I have in the past made my reservation about the informatics [1]. So i would
not want to go back on that unless ofcourse you say things has changed

 

For a very quick and dirty summary/update please see the below


 

Okay great, do find my response inset
 

 

<<snip>>

So what exactly is "multistakeholderism"? Well that isn't quite clear and no
one (least of all the US State Department) has pointed to a useful
definition.  

But whatever it is, a key element is that all the relevant "stakeholders"
including the major Internet corporations get to sit around promoting their
"stakes" and making Internet policy through some sort of consensus process
where all the participants have an "equal" say and where rules of things
like procedure, conflict of interest etc.etc. all seem to be made up as they
go along. 

 

So i can perhaps assume that you agree that multistakeholderism is the way
forward. I agree with your description of MSism and i don't think anyone
will agree less. However, what we are left with is the "HOW to" achieve a
MSism platform (in this case as it relates ICANN)

 

Regards
1. http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/000998.html 

PS: Filtered the list i am not subscribed to, to avoid receiving a bounce
message ;)

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org
[mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Felix Stalder
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:59 AM
To: nettime-l at kein.org
Subject: Re: <nettime> an historic retreat


Hi Dan,

I must say, I've never really understood the politics around ICANN. That has
always been too arcane for me. So I don't understand this development
either.
<...>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org

 

David Farber

Carnegie Mellon University  Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies
University of Pennsylvania Alfred Fitler Moore  Emeritus Professor of
Telecommunications

University of Delaware Distinguished Policy Fellow 

Board Member -- EFF, EPIC and ISOC

Board Emeritus  Stevens Institute of  Technology

Cell: +1-412-726-9889 <tel:%2B1-412-726-9889> 

Google Voice: (864) 8Farber

Email: dave at farber.net

Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897 F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:44 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast
undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

Hello Michael,

On a serious note, at times I get confused on your views. Initially indicate
the the USG (which is basically any typical govt) is the issue that should
be removed from the process and thank goodness the USG heard and responded
positively. Now you are saying the  multistakeholder approach is also not
it, then what is the solution?
You are giving example of organisation you belong (which for instance I
don't know and can't find foot print of it's activities online) have you
tried to make your contribution known and was kicked back?
I think comments like this is what makes the whole multistakeholder approach
more complicated. I know you probably have more experience than I do,
however I think it may be good to not further complicate things for those
who are trying to understand/educate themselves through this medium.
It will be more constructive to read from you, what you think is the problem
and how to fix it. Than just sticking with the problem. This is why I
appreciate Milton's approach (which does not necessarily mean it's the
solution, but he has put something on the table) and I can say I learnt from
it.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 24 Mar 2014 23:26, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

I think Alejandro’s note below illustrates one of the fundamental
limitations of the multistakeholder approach.

 

Alejandro states: this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to
amaze me: civil society has gained the most among all sectors from the
multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the
environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a global
voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside
our countries.

 

I don’t wish to comment on the truth or falsity of this statement.  However,
I would note that in the midst of the recitation of those involved in these
processes and the “gains” made by Civil Society interests (and presumably
others) I must ask what has happened to the “public interest” i.e. the
interests of all over and above the individual sectional interests;  or the
interests of other non-represented groups in these processes. 

 

For example, the Community Informatics community of which I am a part,
concerned as it with the interests of grassroots communities particularly
the marginalized, has only a partially overlapping set of
concerns/”interests” and particularly priorities with “civil society” (as
for example is indicated by the issues presented by CS in Tunis where the CS
priority was focused on Human Rights while the CI community was rather more
concerned with access and social justice issues). Given the refusal of
“Civil Society” to include CI and its concerns within its framework and the
refusal of those acting as stakeholder gatekeepers for current MS processes
to allow for an independent status for the CI community Alejandro’s
self-congratulatory statement above rings rather hollow.

 

But over and above this is the matter of who and how the public interest is
represented—for example in ensuring that processes are fair, transparent and
accountable and not subverted or suborned to individual or private
interests; for ensuring a necessary range of participation including among
those who might, for a variety of reasons, not be actively pursuing such
participation; for including normative diversity (including those supportive
of social justice) as well as identity based diversity; and for representing
the Internet as a global public commons among others.

 

I remain to be informed as to how these matters will be resolved through the
creation of a “multistakeholder consensus” or through the concatenation of
sectional interests which the current description of “multistakeholderism”
is presenting as the means by through which outcome decisions are obtained.

 

Mike 

 

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Alejandro Pisanty
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:22 AM

 


To: parminder
Cc: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

 

Parminder,

 

this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil
society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder
component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We
from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and
unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our
countries.

 

Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g.
through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding;
the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very
different ways and levels.) 

 

I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading the
effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.

 

Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective, open,
evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes
undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe
two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition
democratic. 

 

The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after stating
lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of - is not
doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the governmental
or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions they can make.
ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this respect, wasted by
not being studied enough. And the whole framework is vital for the NTIA
functional substitution problem to hand, which these discussions have long
drifted away from.

 

Alejandro Pisanty

 

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says

"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is
the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of
the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. 
 In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding
source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards
or against the development of open standards, or taking
   varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on
the other traffic on the Internet."


It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, but
governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort Internet
research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no no for
governance functions (standards making for something as socially important
today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public oversight
constitutes a governance function). 

parminder 

On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
 
Michael,
 
On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
John, I think a rather significant problem.

Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
 
And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
context.
 
 
 
But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
at the facts in the public record and then come back.
I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
 
So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
this paragraph.
 
S.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
=eajt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 

 


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss





 

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 <tel:%2B52-1-5541444475>  FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 <tel:%2B525541444475>  DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
<tel:%2B525541444475> 
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140324/5e32569b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 24 22:26:09 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 07:56:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
 cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>	<20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>	<20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>	<532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>	<532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>	<532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>	<057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>	<532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>	<05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com> <21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <5330E941.2010001@itforchange.net>


I have seen hundreds of discussions here which begin by the poser, and a 
basic political question - how can those who are already among the most 
powerful - big business - be actually given rights to make public policy 
decisions on par with people's representatives, quickly end up in 
responses like how can you keep industry out of the room or not consult 
them.. !!???

It seems to be of no avail that the original questioner keeps asserting 
that neither that person nor it seems anyone else ever said that 
industry should not be consulted - however elaborate a meaning be 
applied to the term 'consultation' ....

There is a huge huge difference between consulting and being a part of 
decision making, that too, specifically on public policy making...

Unless we remained focussed on that 'difference', and also the specific 
meaning of 'what is a public policy', and what does 'making and 
enforcing public policy entail' , we wont make progress on discussing 
this particular issue - the political role and status, or even 
definition, of multistakeholderism.  If there is will here to discuss 
these elements seperately we can perhaps do that. Because 
multistakeholder (public) policy making is the new elephant in the IG 
room, and it better be addressed upfront.

parminder


On Tuesday 25 March 2014 05:32 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> On March 22, 2014 at 16:18 gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) wrote:
>   >
>   > Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
>   > standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
>   > or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
>   > key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
>
> I'm not sure this analogy is apt, as much as I sympathize with the
> sentiment.
>
> This is more like Coke having membership on the board of a group which
> is setting standards for grocery shelving. It probably exists.
>
> Surely Coke would have a legitimate interest just like anyone else
> involved (supermarkets, delivery companies, etc.) And that interest
> may well be self-interested but there's no obvious reason why it
> should not be involved or why this would be bad.
>
> Now, if Coke used that position to favor their bottle sizes over that
> of competitors that might be a problem. But that would be the end
> result of a lopsided or corrupted process rather than a mistake
> letting them into the room.
>
> But the purpose of the IETF et al is not to stand between the public
> and the manufacturers.
>
> Most of the IETF's work is to standardize practices among
> manufacturers (providers, etc.) in the belief that this produces a
> result in the public's interest by improving interoperability.
>
> I don't believe I am splitting a hair: I think there is a time and
> place for consumer advocacy groups, and industry advocacy groups, and
> standards development bodies.
>
> Their interests often overlap in significant ways but much of their
> effort is disjoint.
>
> Put simply: Merely having a pecuniary interest in a result is not a
> /prima facie/ justification for disenfranchisement.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/d8a83e44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 02:10:09 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:10:09 +1200
Subject: [governance] The Future of Internet Governance Dominates Opening of
 ICANN's Singapore Meeting
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCjHz3O1xNPSQdjw5W0g3=49GxwcYPuJScAM2TjW6LUWg@mail.gmail.com>

  [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert

http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-24mar14-en
------------------------------
 The Future of Internet Governance Dominates Opening of ICANN's Singapore
Meeting

24 March 2014

*Singapore...*The process of determining how best to transfer stewardship of
key Internet technical functions from the U.S. Government to the
International community began today during ICANN's 49th public meeting in
Singapore.

The discussions were driven by the recent announcement that the United
States Government (USG) will transfer the stewardship of key Internet
technical functions to the global community.

"This is indeed momentous," ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé told an
international news conference. "The decision by the United States
Government validates the idea that people around the world can come
together and manage a global resource that is borderless."

Explaining the next steps in the transition process, Fadi Chehadé went on
to say, "We will now take the global process launched today by the ICANN
community to the world. We will have meetings and consultations with the
public, communities and with our fellow technical organisations, the IETF,
the Regional Internet Registries, and here most importantly in the Asia
Pacific region, APNIC, who will be partnering with us in getting the word
out to involve everyone into that process."

"I would like to congratulate ICANN for successfully setting up two
regional hubs last year, one in Istanbul, Turkey, and the other here in
Singapore," said Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim, Singapore's Minister for
Communications and Information. "It underscores ICANN's commitment to serve
the global community. and I believe that Asia-Pacific hub in Singapore will
be a great vehicle for ICANN to reach out to the region.

"Absolutely central to everything that we do and that matters to the world
at large is the security, stability and resiliency of the system," said
Board Chair Dr. Stephen D. Crocker. "The discussion that is taking place
now has to do with the stewardship, but with the proviso of continued
stability and rock-solid operations of the core functions."

ICANN's 49th Public Meeting in Singapore will continue through Thursday, 27
March.

###

To listen to an audio recording of the ICANN49 Singapore news conference go
here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/singapore49

To download high resolution photos from the ICANN49 meeting in Singapore go
here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=icann49

To see the full schedule of ICANN49 in Singapore, go to:

http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule-full
 MEDIA CONTACTS:

Brad White
ICANN Director of Global Media Affairs
Washington, D.C.
Tel. +1 (202) 570 7118
brad.white at icann.org

Liana Teo
Head of Communications for Asia Pacific
Singapore
Tel. +65 6808 6669
liana.teo at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/b0f20759/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Tue Mar 25 10:08:37 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:08:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a
 conference call for information sharing
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+bm4=0byzvRB6cK1q4murOfV-LtO4nV6ig6qtQVzpnvJQ@mail.gmail.com>

[ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with
your contacts.* ]



In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take
place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is
organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information
among stakeholders.



The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we
do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We
kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to
share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their /
their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in
advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for
interventions.



Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data)
are below:

   - Date:  8 April 201
   - Time: 11:00 - 13:00 (CET)
   - Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of
   international number, please see the attached PDF document)
   - Conference room number: 1327846
   - Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please
   note that you do *NOT* need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the
   teleconference - it's offered as an option)



As background information, you might want to go through the contributions
which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at
http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has
submitted two contributions, which are available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176and
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-e
volution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177.



Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this
discussion.


Best regards,


--
Andrea Glorioso (Mr)
European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy
Development
Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any
circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European
Commission.
Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient
en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission
européenne.

Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest
Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/7b04eb89/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20120920_EU-InternationalAccessNumbers-EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 115457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/7b04eb89/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 10:13:44 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 02:13:44 +1200
Subject: [governance] NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a
 conference call for information sharing
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bm4=0byzvRB6cK1q4murOfV-LtO4nV6ig6qtQVzpnvJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+bm4=0byzvRB6cK1q4murOfV-LtO4nV6ig6qtQVzpnvJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5612D3AC-8026-4E3E-B06A-56D3C9C9EAC7@gmail.com>

Fantastic initiative. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:08 AM, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> [ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts. ]
> 
>  
> 
> In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders.
> 
>  
> 
> The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to let us know in advance so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions.
> 
>  
> 
> Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below:
> 
> Date:  8 April 201
> Time: 11:00 – 13:00 (CET)
> Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document)
> Conference room number: 1327846
> Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please note that you do NOT need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference – it's offered as an option)
>  
> 
> As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176 and http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Andrea Glorioso (Mr)
> European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
> Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development
> Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
> T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
> 
> The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
> Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne.
> 
> Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin
> 
> <20120920_EU-InternationalAccessNumbers-EN.pdf>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/26399977/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Mar 25 13:03:52 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:03:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <5330F31D.4090406@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com>
 <5330E941.2010001@itforchange.net>
 <5330F31D.4090406@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <E1WSUiD-0003JU-Ap@igcaucus.org>

At 04:08 25/03/2014, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I reckon those trying to do that in this thread are doing a
>pretty bad job of it by continually demonstrating ignorance of
>issues that are critical to this particular discussion.

Stephen,
excuse me: I admire your candor, but how can you be so naive? Please 
read carefully the first part of RFC 3869 and ask yourself why IAB 
took the time to write it. There are several ways to tamper with 
standards. In research and in details, i.e. in financing 
architectonics and in implementation aspects. This means in fooling 
the IAB before the charter, and in the labs of those who introduce 
RFCs. Are you in that case?

I would be quite interested if someone could explain me why, in terms 
of business return and Congress legislation evolution Comsat and its 
likes would be interested in internet innovation.
jfc



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Mar 25 13:44:57 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:44:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was
 RE:  Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <0f4d01cf47c7$7f8d1490$7ea73db0$@gmail.com>
References: <0c1e01cf4775$55676960$00363c20$@gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6hQHPx8-Fp2JVmyEytLRFhxk2U3xt3o4jb2czEEL5OYig@mail.gmail.com>
 <0ccd01cf477f$6a79ce60$3f6d6b20$@gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6g3JUJnTJ1F2EE4_us=Eq8Eh9X2xzq_VF8GcRFNdsQKoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0f4d01cf47c7$7f8d1490$7ea73db0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1WSVLs-0003Xv-MU@igcaucus.org>

At 02:13 25/03/2014, michael gurstein wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0F4E_01CF478C.D339AE40"
>Content-Language: en-us
>
>As a matter of fact I don't agree that "multistakeholderism is the 
>way forward" at least not in its current undefined and poorly 
>elaborated form with no evident safeguards for the public interest.

+1

MSism, as we hear of it, is shaped from Doug Engelbart's 
(<http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html>http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html) 
concepts. It is a diktyarchy (from diktyos: network) i.e. an 
intergovernance between peer structured autoselected entities. The 
autoselection process is based upon the time network/global 
availability, i.e. the capacity to collectively meet on a mailing 
list and anytime anywhere. This is to produce the buzz that will 
exceed the noise of reality and the squawk of the multitude. It is to 
polycracy the equivalent of monarchy to democracy. Technically, MS 
proceeds from a root/server/client hierarchic model (however its 
slogan is "on an equal footing" [for the leaders only, cf. RFC 6852, 
Montevideo statement], while polycracy proceeds from a "master and 
master" open capability model.

The difficulty in the extension from democracy to polycracy is that 
diktyarchy looks democratic to the onlooker: democracy is about 
decision decentralization; MSism keeps that decision decentralization 
within its political, business, and societal structures that dialogue 
together. Polycracy is actually about decision distribution among 
political, business, and societal individuals who multilogue together 
in any manner they wish and decide by themselves.

This is why MSism is a method to deploy "reasonable" decisions 
collectively agreed among mutually accepted 
share/status/stake-holders, while polycracy is the autopoietic 
emergence of the life of the multitude through individual considered 
decisions. Both systems are adapted to our time. MSism is selected 
network centric, and polycracy is people centered.

In MSism, structures (states and corporates) ally to govern the 
"others", i.e. the WSIS definition of the "civil society", and 
sponsor politically acceptable civil society structures. It is an 
interesting concept by its "mid-up/down" practical capacities of 
substitution: it is alliances centered. In its own turn, polycracy 
accepts substitution but only in its normal role of substitution of 
subsidiarity: it is people centered.

What is at stake in here for the Internet Governance is the virtual 
world built as an ICANN contractual diktyarchy vs. a real world that 
will progressively erode the NTIA leadership in an operational 
polycracy. The real question is about whether this evolution will 
occur in the most seamless way possible, in the best respect of the 
"digility" (from digital personality) of everyone.

This is why I propose to start from what we know, as the WSIS has 
advised. If we proceed from the person ("centrada en la persona" says 
the Spanish version of the WSIS declaration) entering the digisphere, 
i.e. the digitally split vision of its environmental reality, and 
considers its digital rights. We can pursue with the inviolability of 
people's "digicile" (digital-domicile: using simple, clear, 
universally understandable notions extending our daily life in the 
digisphere through direct metaphors can only help). From there we can 
then proceed and differentiate what belongs to physical government, 
ethical behavior, and digital governance.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/cabfcd09/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 14:46:29 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:46:29 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was
 RE: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6isXm3f1i3zqqCPAG=-F6d3t+Z5BNs6MX7WpSREjBDXtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0c1e01cf4775$55676960$00363c20$@gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6hQHPx8-Fp2JVmyEytLRFhxk2U3xt3o4jb2czEEL5OYig@mail.gmail.com>	<0ccd01cf477f$6a79ce60$3f6d6b20$@gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6g3JUJnTJ1F2EE4_us=Eq8Eh9X2xzq_VF8GcRFNdsQKoA@mail.gmail.com>	<0f4d01cf47c7$7f8d1490$7ea73db0$@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6isXm3f1i3zqqCPAG=-F6d3t+Z5BNs6MX7WpSREjBDXtg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <045101cf485a$893ee250$9bbca6f0$@gmail.com>

Seun,

 

I and several others have been asking for some elaboration as to some
specifics concerning the Multistakeholder model that is being so widely and
actively promoted.  

 

We are still waiting.

 

M

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 6:27 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC;
discuss at 1net.org
Subject: RE: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast
undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Mar 2014 09:14, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact I don’t agree that “multistakeholderism is the way
forward” at least not in its current undefined and poorly elaborated form
>
Okay great, so what form would you propose and please don't get me wrong, I
am not saying the MSism is perfect and as a matter of fact it cannot be
perfect and no system is. However it's a platform that provide opportunity
to encourage inputs towards perfection. So we all need to be involved in
determining the processes.
>
with no evident safeguards for the public interest. 
>
When you say "public interest", whom do you refer to as MSism indeed
represents public interest. So what safeguards would you propose?

Cheers!
>  
>
> M
>
>  
>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:01 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; discuss at 1net.org; Civil Society Internet Governance
Caucus - IGC
>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast
undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>  
>
> Hello Micheal,
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:37 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>  
>
> Could I respectfully suggest that you do some searching in the archives of
this list and online where you will find my position on these matters,
information on the Community Informatics community and other matters in
which you seem to have an interest rather extensively presented including
through my blog.
>
>  
>
> I have in the past made my reservation about the informatics [1]. So i
would not want to go back on that unless ofcourse you say things has changed
>>
>>  
>>
>> For a very quick and dirty summary/update please see the below

>>
>>  
>
> Okay great, do find my response inset
>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> <<snip>>
>>
>> So what exactly is "multistakeholderism"? Well that isn't quite clear and
no
>> one (least of all the US State Department) has pointed to a useful
>> definition.  
>>
>> But whatever it is, a key element is that all the relevant "stakeholders"
>> including the major Internet corporations get to sit around promoting
their
>> "stakes" and making Internet policy through some sort of consensus
process
>> where all the participants have an "equal" say and where rules of things
>> like procedure, conflict of interest etc.etc. all seem to be made up as
they
>> go along.
>
>  
>
> So i can perhaps assume that you agree that multistakeholderism is the way
forward. I agree with your description of MSism and i don't think anyone
will agree less. However, what we are left with is the "HOW to" achieve a
MSism platform (in this case as it relates ICANN)
>
>  
>
> Regards
> 1. http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/000998.html
>
> PS: Filtered the list i am not subscribed to, to avoid receiving a bounce
message ;)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org
>> [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Felix Stalder
>> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:59 AM
>> To: nettime-l at kein.org
>> Subject: Re: <nettime> an historic retreat
>>
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I must say, I've never really understood the politics around ICANN. That
has
>> always been too arcane for me. So I don't understand this development
>> either.
>> <...>
>>
>>
>> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org
>>
>>  
>>
>> David Farber
>>
>> Carnegie Mellon University  Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies
>> University of Pennsylvania Alfred Fitler Moore  Emeritus Professor of
Telecommunications
>>
>> University of Delaware Distinguished Policy Fellow 
>>
>> Board Member -- EFF, EPIC and ISOC
>>
>> Board Emeritus  Stevens Institute of  Technology
>>
>> Cell: +1-412-726-9889
>>
>> Google Voice: (864) 8Farber
>>
>> Email: dave at farber.net
>>
>> Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897 F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:44 AM
>> To: michael gurstein
>> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast
undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hello Michael,
>>
>> On a serious note, at times I get confused on your views. Initially
indicate the the USG (which is basically any typical govt) is the issue that
should be removed from the process and thank goodness the USG heard and
responded positively. Now you are saying the  multistakeholder approach is
also not it, then what is the solution?
>> You are giving example of organisation you belong (which for instance I
don't know and can't find foot print of it's activities online) have you
tried to make your contribution known and was kicked back?
>> I think comments like this is what makes the whole multistakeholder
approach more complicated. I know you probably have more experience than I
do, however I think it may be good to not further complicate things for
those who are trying to understand/educate themselves through this medium.
>> It will be more constructive to read from you, what you think is the
problem and how to fix it. Than just sticking with the problem. This is why
I appreciate Milton's approach (which does not necessarily mean it's the
solution, but he has put something on the table) and I can say I learnt from
it.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2014 23:26, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think Alejandro’s note below illustrates one of the fundamental
limitations of the multistakeholder approach.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Alejandro states: this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to
amaze me: civil society has gained the most among all sectors from the
multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the
environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a global
voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside
our countries.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I don’t wish to comment on the truth or falsity of this statement.
However, I would note that in the midst of the recitation of those involved
in these processes and the “gains” made by Civil Society interests (and
presumably others) I must ask what has happened to the “public interest”
i.e. the interests of all over and above the individual sectional interests;
or the interests of other non-represented groups in these processes.
>>
>>  
>>
>> For example, the Community Informatics community of which I am a part,
concerned as it with the interests of grassroots communities particularly
the marginalized, has only a partially overlapping set of
concerns/”interests” and particularly priorities with “civil society” (as
for example is indicated by the issues presented by CS in Tunis where the CS
priority was focused on Human Rights while the CI community was rather more
concerned with access and social justice issues). Given the refusal of
“Civil Society” to include CI and its concerns within its framework and the
refusal of those acting as stakeholder gatekeepers for current MS processes
to allow for an independent status for the CI community Alejandro’s
self-congratulatory statement above rings rather hollow.
>>
>>  
>>
>> But over and above this is the matter of who and how the public interest
is represented—for example in ensuring that processes are fair, transparent
and accountable and not subverted or suborned to individual or private
interests; for ensuring a necessary range of participation including among
those who might, for a variety of reasons, not be actively pursuing such
participation; for including normative diversity (including those supportive
of social justice) as well as identity based diversity; and for representing
the Internet as a global public commons among others.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I remain to be informed as to how these matters will be resolved through
the creation of a “multistakeholder consensus” or through the concatenation
of sectional interests which the current description of
“multistakeholderism” is presenting as the means by through which outcome
decisions are obtained.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty
>> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:22 AM
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> To: parminder
>> Cc: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Parminder,
>>
>>  
>>
>> this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil
society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder
component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We
from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and
unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our
countries.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g.
through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding;
the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very
different ways and levels.) 
>>
>>  
>>
>> I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading
the effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective,
open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes
undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe
two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition
democratic. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after
stating lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of -
is not doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the
governmental or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions they
can make. ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this respect,
wasted by not being studied enough. And the whole framework is vital for the
NTIA functional substitution problem to hand, which these discussions have
long drifted away from.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:
>>
>> This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says
>>
>> "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is
the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of
the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. 
>>
>>  In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding
source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards
or against the development of open standards, or taking
>>
>>    varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols
on the other traffic on the Internet."
>>
>>
>> It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function,
but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort
Internet research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no no
for governance functions (standards making for something as socially
important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public
oversight constitutes a governance function). 
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
>>>>
>>>> do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
>>>>
>>>> Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
>>>>
>>>> expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
>>>>
>>>> transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
>>>>
>>>> John, I think a rather significant problem.
>>>
>>> Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
>>>
>>> all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
>>>
>>> I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
>>>
>>> how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
>>>
>>> context.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
>>>
>>> at the facts in the public record and then come back.
>>>
>>> I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
>>>
>>> found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
>>>
>>> same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
>>>
>>> pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
>>>
>>> if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
>>>
>>> And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
>>>
>>> anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
>>>
>>> The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
>>>
>>> this paragraph.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
>>>
>>> i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
>>>
>>> 6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
>>>
>>> fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
>>>
>>> Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
>>>
>>> EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
>>>
>>> =eajt
>>>
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> discuss mailing list
>>>
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> -- 
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> Facultad de Química UNAM
>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/cec0b6a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Mar 25 16:08:43 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:08:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF
  cosponsorship!?
In-Reply-To: <21297.49476.228592.617960@world.std.com>
References: <012001cf4532$76fae830$64f0b890$@gmail.com>
 <20140321183053.GA38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <014301cf4535$c767b700$56372500$@gmail.com>
 <20140321185735.GB38840@mx1.yitter.info>
 <532cd2b2.e7bcb40a.4a94.ffffed9fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiPvjU0tCoGEByfeb3bETu6Kh7uDNLy-ObmdC2P22dYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532d8c7e.8259440a.5ba8.ffffe7ebSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CACAaNxiwTTBnGqr4mVf3DS7NecRbBRzJM5P-_-SBxgZLxugrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <048d01cf45f0$320241b0$9606c510$@gmail.com>
 <532DEC08.5010703@cs.tcd.ie>
 <057201cf4618$602d61a0$208824e0$@gmail.com>
 <532E0E64.2040007@cs.tcd.ie>
 <05be01cf4625$09172600$1b457200$@gmail.com>
 <21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com>
 <5330E941.2010001@itforchange.net>
 <21297.49476.228592.617960@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <E1WSXb3-0004HT-Lr@igcaucus.org>

At 18:47 25/03/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>They come back declaring a decision: That's STILL three against two!

Very good and full of metaphoric lessons:

- MSism implies "votes" among happy fews and not everyone on an equal footing.
- NTIA has plaid until now the role of God. Once it is played by ICANN ....

jfc



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 19:00:42 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:00:42 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop Proposals
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiA3zHmGqNSiDsSxRMUBnvi_5q_90n4_RUU2OC=FOsQCbg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The United Nations Internet Governance Forum Secretariat through the
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) are now accepting Workshop Proposals
for this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

Visit: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

Last year the IGC organised and hosted a Workshop on Multistakeholder
Selection Processes: Accountability and Transparency where it worked
alongside other Stakeholders such as the ICC Basis, ISOC and other
independent persons. The community may wish to explore whether there is
merit on organising a follow up workshop on this matter.

It will also be good to see other IGC Workshops on other issues and matters
important to the community where we could have volunteers to moderate. This
could also mean working alongside other stakeholders etc. It might also be
good to think about having some kind of Civil Society Plenary as a possible
side event to enable all civil society organisations and their
representatives.

The community would also be advised to identify priority areas for advocacy
and identify partners and collaborators. There is also room for civil
society to better organise itself through organised "rapportering", daily
consolidated press releases at the IGF, and volunteers for social media
engagement.

Fully utilising our global presence could also be key. We also need to
identify how we can take priority and focal areas and identify targeted
outcomes etc. Whatever, we decide, we should start the planning and
thinking now. If ever there was a time to have functional and cohesive
advocacy it would be now.

With every best wish,
Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/22872f28/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Mar 25 19:46:04 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:46:04 +1100
Subject: [governance] Fw: straw poll results
Message-ID: <E8EEE5A3270749F7BDB3FFD46C04CBE5@Toshiba>

Hi Everyone,
I have been waiting for a gap from other issues to publish the results of the recent poll as regards the future of the civil society co ordination group (cscg). But having come to the conclusion that any clear air from other issues is probably months away, I think people should be aware of the results now and give any feedback to the current group on next steps.
I am attaching a more detailed summary of the results. But a quick summary is

30 respondents

Most respondents favour a cscg that includes individuals as well as organisations

Strong feeling the group should have some sort of charter (however minimal)

Good support for 5 new members being added

Many more findings included in the document.

Some personal comments:

There is clearly a desire for this group to be expanded if it continues to exist.

The only ongoing role I can see for this group currently is to try to co ordinate civil society appointments to MAG.(unless other needs for civil society representation occur). Whether this justifies all the effort of a continuing organisation is a relevant question.

Many of the questions I think should await formation of a new expanded group, eg

a.       Evolution of a charter

b.      Whether or not to rotate existing members and if so when (see survey findings on this)







Anyway, here it is for comments and discussion.



Ian Peter


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/84390bf9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cscg straw poll.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 118349 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/84390bf9/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 20:15:57 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:15:57 -0300
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of Deputies!!
Message-ID: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>

[sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]

Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year 
battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) 
was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.

Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause, 
Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:

"Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede 
neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"

"We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of 
expression and protection of privacy!"

I am happy!

fraternal regards

--c.a.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 20:22:28 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:22:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of
 Deputies!!
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3ZCPDXJwuX+-ntitVaYC0b7jCDD1W=UuoKZMioPb5cXg@mail.gmail.com>

Great victory of every individual and organization that participated in
this process since the public consultation! And we share this victory with
all our friends around the world who supported this fight, who wrote texts,
analysis and who gave us space to talk about Marco Civil and keep it on the
agenda all though the years. THANK YOU!

This was a huge a very important chapter of the battle. Now comes the
Senate! :)

Marília


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>
> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle,
> "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved
> by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>
> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>
> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>
> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
> expression and protection of privacy!"
>
> I am happy!
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/836a726d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dl at panamo.eu  Tue Mar 25 20:34:17 2014
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 01:34:17 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by
 Chamber	of Deputies!!
Message-ID: <48tnumpuhyt571e8tcbrdfl6.1395794057962@email.android.com>

Congrats!  You are an example for the world.
@+, kind regards, Dom

<div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> </div><div>Date :26/03/2014  01:22  (GMT+01:00) </div><div>A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> </div><div>Cc : NCSG List <ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu>,Best Bits List <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,1Net List <discuss at 1net.org> </div><div>Objet : Re: [discuss] [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber	of Deputies!! </div><div>
</div>Great victory of every individual and organization that participated in this process since the public consultation! And we share this victory with all our friends around the world who supported this fight, who wrote texts, analysis and who gave us space to talk about Marco Civil and keep it on the agenda all though the years. THANK YOU!

This was a huge a very important chapter of the battle. Now comes the Senate! :)

Marília


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
[sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]

Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.

Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause, Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:

"Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"

"We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of expression and protection of privacy!"

I am happy!

fraternal regards

--c.a.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




-- 
Marília Maciel
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/6795a255/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From presidencia at internauta.org.ar  Tue Mar 25 20:45:34 2014
From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Sergio Salinas Porto)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:45:34 -0300
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of
 Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5-+WgfsdcEcngL5NiouR9WjtKL18pG=CtKLht9icF9vgedOg@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to all the people of our sister Republic of Brazil and all
militant causes made this popular win!
Greetings from Argentina
Another América is Possible

*Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://ctamdq.org.ar>
FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.fuilatin.org>
facebook:salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> &
sergiosalinasII <http://www.facebook.com/sergiosalinasII>
twitter:sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>
Google+: Sergio Salinas Porto
<https://plus.google.com/104639152443153592254/posts>
Hangout:presidencia at internauta.org.ar
<Hangout%3Apresidencia at internauta.org.ar> /
Pixelhub: salinasporto <http://pixelhub.me/salinasporto>
Youtube: salinasporto <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>
Skype:internautaargentina
Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*

*"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que
humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo
Galeano*



2014-03-25 21:15 GMT-03:00 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>:

> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>
> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle,
> "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved
> by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>
> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>
> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>
> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
> expression and protection of privacy!"
>
> I am happy!
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/5fc9c4ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joana at varonferraz.com  Tue Mar 25 20:58:04 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:58:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber
 of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <53322428.4150b40a.71e0.249dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca> <53322428.4150b40a.71e0.249dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrkXKATfc=0uarvay3yQcRtQono__EdKQX5fSopLiHRhA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The final version of the text is here:
http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705&filename=Tramitacao-PL+2126/2011
Sorry its not in English and in a pdf file 0.o But I'm sure people will be
working in the translations around here.

It's not perfect, but it is a great achievement and we will keep fighting
as we still have to approve it in the Senate.
Not sure if NetMundial comes first or before... probably first.

The level of coordination of representatives from civil society to reach
this was really amazing! it's a happy day for the Brazilians concerned with
internet rights indeed!

all the best

joana



On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> At 01:15 26/03/2014, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle,
>> "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved
>> by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>>
>> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
>> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>>
>> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
>> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
>> expression and protection of privacy!"
>>
>
> Bravo!
> B R I L L I A N T  as in BRAZIL !!!
>
> Would you have an URL for the final text, if possible in English.
> I would suggest that this text be added to the press information on
> netmubdial.br to show the world what the IG is about when enacted by a
> people.
>
> I have a question for the Brazilian winners! (who also host the Sao Paulo
> meeting): according to your new law, what is an Internet stakeholder? What
> the place of ICANN?
>
> M G
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/fddf2a36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Mar 25 20:59:42 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:59:42 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber
 of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <20140326004941.83D5192285@hermes.tiwa.net.br>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca> <20140326004941.83D5192285@hermes.tiwa.net.br>
Message-ID: <5332267E.6040404@cafonso.ca>

Here is the link to the approved text (in PDF, in Portuguese):

http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705&filename=Tramitacao-PL+2126/2011

I am sure there will be an English version soon -- maybe as soon as it 
passes Senate (where it should be approved without modification) and our 
prez sanctions it.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 03/25/2014 09:44 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> At 01:15 26/03/2014, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year
>> battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework)
>> was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>>
>> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
>> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>>
>> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
>> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom
>> of expression and protection of privacy!"
>
> Bravo!
> B R I L L I A N T  as in BRAZIL !!!
>
> Would you have an URL for the final text, if possible in English.
> I would suggest that this text be added to the press information on
> netmubdial.br to show the world what the IG is about when enacted by a
> people.
>
> I have a question for the Brazilian winners! (who also host the Sao
> Paulo meeting): according to your new law, what is an Internet
> stakeholder? What the place of ICANN?
>
> M G
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 21:18:53 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:18:53 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber
 of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <5332267E.6040404@cafonso.ca>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca> <20140326004941.83D5192285@hermes.tiwa.net.br> <5332267E.6040404@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <53322AFD.8080603@cafonso.ca>

Michel, got a version in Word, attached. You might try and run it 
through Google Translate.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 03/25/2014 09:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Here is the link to the approved text (in PDF, in Portuguese):
>
> http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705&filename=Tramitacao-PL+2126/2011
>
>
> I am sure there will be an English version soon -- maybe as soon as it
> passes Senate (where it should be approved without modification) and our
> prez sanctions it.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/25/2014 09:44 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>> At 01:15 26/03/2014, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>>> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year
>>> battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework)
>>> was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>>>
>>> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
>>> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>>>
>>> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
>>> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>>> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom
>>> of expression and protection of privacy!"
>>
>> Bravo!
>> B R I L L I A N T  as in BRAZIL !!!
>>
>> Would you have an URL for the final text, if possible in English.
>> I would suggest that this text be added to the press information on
>> netmubdial.br to show the world what the IG is about when enacted by a
>> people.
>>
>> I have a question for the Brazilian winners! (who also host the Sao
>> Paulo meeting): according to your new law, what is an Internet
>> stakeholder? What the place of ICANN?
>>
>> M G
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Marco Civil da Internet (PL 2126_2011) - 25_3_2014.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 69632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/ece3f823/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 25 21:47:05 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:47:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber
 of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <4F385379-1D51-42D2-91E8-E0490B596E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>

Congratulations, this is excellent news! Please send the link to the final text!
Stephanie Perrin
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
> 
> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
> 
> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause, Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
> 
> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
> 
> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of expression and protection of privacy!"
> 
> I am happy!
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 22:04:31 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:04:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by
 Chamber of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <4F385379-1D51-42D2-91E8-E0490B596E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
	<4F385379-1D51-42D2-91E8-E0490B596E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf5-8kvuC-2Fi9Uhusv8Sw=cNxJZ9KdHuU3ZAWxr6PMww@mail.gmail.com>

this is a collective victory!!!! after many many years of work of a lot of
people in different levels of action - from guerrilla to lobbying to
academia to advocacy !

articles of interest

3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III -
protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security,
stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII -
preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for
business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release
saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different
prices for speeds and services)
7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression and
privacy
9 - NN
11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article say
when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main
issue here)
13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider
15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP liability
just after that
21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content
with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers
in Brazil )

good news - all with due process

but I think that, due to the political situation in Brazil, this is the
best we could have asked for


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Congratulations, this is excellent news! Please send the link to the final
> text!
> Stephanie Perrin
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
> > [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
> >
> > Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year
> battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was
> approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
> >
> > Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
> >
> > "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
> >
> > "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
> expression and protection of privacy!"
> >
> > I am happy!
> >
> > fraternal regards
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.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
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/37448610/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 22:05:29 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:05:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by
 Chamber of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAf5-8kvuC-2Fi9Uhusv8Sw=cNxJZ9KdHuU3ZAWxr6PMww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
	<4F385379-1D51-42D2-91E8-E0490B596E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAK-FJAf5-8kvuC-2Fi9Uhusv8Sw=cNxJZ9KdHuU3ZAWxr6PMww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcsoQOjUszDCwnkm4fAy2DpZrYDhpxQvrkGEVwg6gvu=Q@mail.gmail.com>

and just out of the key-board:
http://infojustice.org/archives/32527


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> this is a collective victory!!!! after many many years of work of a lot of
> people in different levels of action - from guerrilla to lobbying to
> academia to advocacy !
>
> articles of interest
>
> 3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III -
> protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security,
> stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII -
> preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for
> business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release
> saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different
> prices for speeds and services)
> 7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression
> and privacy
> 9 - NN
> 11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article
> say when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main
> issue here)
> 13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider
> 15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
> 18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP liability
> just after that
> 21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content
> with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers
> in Brazil )
>
> good news - all with due process
>
> but I think that, due to the political situation in Brazil, this is the
> best we could have asked for
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations, this is excellent news! Please send the link to the
>> final text!
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>> >
>> > Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year
>> battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was
>> approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>> >
>> > Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
>> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>> >
>> > "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
>> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>> >
>> > "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
>> expression and protection of privacy!"
>> >
>> > I am happy!
>> >
>> > fraternal regards
>> >
>> > --c.a.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > discuss mailing list
>> > discuss at 1net.org
>> > http://1net-mail.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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/128fa075/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pouzin at well.com  Tue Mar 25 22:13:03 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 03:13:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by
 Chamber of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYoHwuWV5F9jGgh=PU4Tq5e7WqTkt+Vw39c2hyFTZnz=FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca> <20140326004941.83D5192285@hermes.tiwa.net.br>
 <5332267E.6040404@cafonso.ca> <CA+EjHYoHwuWV5F9jGgh=PU4Tq5e7WqTkt+Vw39c2hyFTZnz=FA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYq2GK+qJU-mKFScu8T_AQFUxGkSArfb_edx-ePA18zV+w@mail.gmail.com>

From: Louis Pouzin <pouzin at enst.fr>
Date: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:06 AM
Subject: [discuss] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of Deputies!!
To: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com>, NCSG List <
ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu>, IGC Caucus <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
Best Bits List <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 1Net List <discuss at 1net.org>


Caipirinha everybody, prost
 .
Louis
- - -

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Here is the link to the approved text (in PDF, in Portuguese):
>
> http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=
> 1238705&filename=Tramitacao-PL+2126/2011
>
> I am sure there will be an English version soon -- maybe as soon as it
> passes Senate (where it should be approved without modification) and our
> prez sanctions it.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/0d8532d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 25 22:39:29 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:39:29 -0300
Subject: [discuss] [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber
 of Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <7FD7823E-D6DE-4760-BA48-6C1647B4A5CD@frobbit.se>
References: <CACpVkK3ZCPDXJwuX+-ntitVaYC0b7jCDD1W=UuoKZMioPb5cXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7FD7823E-D6DE-4760-BA48-6C1647B4A5CD@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0e0LKJxrrGBzTQuJzWnFyQ9r9XWzMP4_HMon0+tDcJcw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I share with you a short text in English with an evaluation of the approval
of Marco Civil and some highlights of how important topics were tackled by
the bill. The text was written by Luiz Moncau and Pedro Mizukami from
CTS/FGV: http://infojustice.org/archives/32527

Best
Marília


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>wrote:

> Congratulations!
>
>    Patrik Fältström
>
> On 26 mar 2014, at 08:22, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Great victory of every individual and organization that participated in
> this process since the public consultation! And we share this victory with
> all our friends around the world who supported this fight, who wrote texts,
> analysis and who gave us space to talk about Marco Civil and keep it on the
> agenda all though the years. THANK YOU!
>
> This was a huge a very important chapter of the battle. Now comes the
> Senate! :)
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>>
>> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle,
>> "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved
>> by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>>
>> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
>> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>>
>> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
>> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>>
>> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
>> expression and protection of privacy!"
>>
>> I am happy!
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140325/e269a07c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Tue Mar 25 23:11:46 2014
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:11:46 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] MARCO CIVIL APPROVED by Br House
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfCknNSWQMeXQPs5wW7J8QYFKd2qeJNpdCErU7v93dHYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAfCknNSWQMeXQPs5wW7J8QYFKd2qeJNpdCErU7v93dHYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF5865E2.3C9A0%vanda@uol.com.br>

 I quite happy to see this approved timely for the NET MUNDIAL in Brazil
next 23-24th April.
Best to all


Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464




From:  Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
Date:  Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 8:54
To:  "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org"
<irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>, "discuss at 1net.org"
<discuss at 1net.org>
Subject:  [IRPCoalition] MARCO CIVIL APPROVED by Br House


Dear all, 

As we have received so much support from the international community, I'm
extremely happy to let you know that Marco Civil (after years of activism of
a great group of Br groups and a lot of political strategy) has just been
approved at the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Now we need to approve it in
the Senate. 

This is the final version of the text:
http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705&
filename=Tramitacao-PL+2126/2011

Of course, the text is not perfect and we still have to fight for changes on
data retention. Nevertheless, its a very happy day for many of the Brazilian
civil society organizations mobilized for approving a bill of rights for the
Internet. A lot of very good people have been engaged and doing an amazing
job in Brasilia and on the social networks, without giving up, despite of
the never ending vote-not vote soap opera. #FeelingProud :)

I would like to thank you for all the support received to far, as
international pressure have helped as well.

This is also a good step for NetMundial.

Exciting

-- 
Carolina Rossini 
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

_______________________________________________ IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/833583fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 01:18:42 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:18:42 +1200
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of
 Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiD8snbGWjcUiCvHMX_PMfhkjhmkTKcktiC7cspz3P=6WQ@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations from the Pacific as well.

The Pasifika Nexus Press Release on the matter on the Marco Civil can be
found here:
http://www.pasifikanexus.nu/2014/03/26/marco-civil-da-internet-pasifika-nexus/

Kind Regards,
Sala


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>
> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle,
> "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved
> by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>
> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>
> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>
> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
> expression and protection of privacy!"
>
> I am happy!
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/d41b95ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Mar 26 07:49:21 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:19:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Zittrain: The misguided freakout over ICANN
References: <CAKx4trgeTmnFPTtg62VaG3KCN+D=ReRr8i5dNzvDBC=H3O093Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20D862A7-ACE7-4B28-803D-A8A411AD54D3@hserus.net>

FUD debunked

--srs (iPad)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
> Date: 26 March 2014 17:05:02 IST
> To: "ip" <ip at listbox.com>
> Subject: [IP] Zittrain: The misguided freakout over ICANN
> Reply-To: dave at farber.net
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Richard Forno <rforno at infowarrior.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2014
> Subject: Zittrain: The misguided freakout over ICANN
> To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior at attrition.org>
> Cc: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
> 
> 
> No, Barack Obama Isn't Handing Control of the Internet Over to China
> BY JONATHAN ZITTRAIN
> 
> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117093/us-withdraws-icann-why-its-no-big-deal
> 
> On March 14, the U.S. government announced that it would seek to relinquish a privileged role in the management of Internet names and numbers. An organization called ICANN—the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers—is to continue doing what it’s doing without maintaining an ongoing contract with the Department of Commerce to do it.  And what does ICANN do?  It helps keep IP addresses in order, ensuring that each address—used to let parties on the Internet identify one another—is not assigned more than once.  And it facilitates the addition of “top level domains,” those suffixes like .com, .org, .uk, and more recently, .clothing, which, with a concatenation of names to their left, become the names for nearly all online destinations, including newrepublic.com. A receding role for the U.S. government has been anticipated for over a decade, and the move is both wise and of little impact.  Some reaction has been surprisingly alarmist.
> 
> A Wall Street Journal columnist described it as “America’s Internet surrender.” Said one member of Congress: “Giving up control of ICANN will allow countries like China and Russia, that don’t place the same value in freedom of speech, to better define how the internet looks and operates.”
> 
> From a former Bush administration official in the Daily Caller: “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal—only with possibly much worse consequences.” (Namely, to “endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S.—and open the door to a global tax on Web use.”) And Newt Gingrich: “Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.”
> 
> The venerable information technology publication The Register summed it up this way: “US govt: You, ICANN. YOU can run the internet. We quit.” And from the National Journal: “When U.S. Steps Back, Will Russia and China Control the Internet?” As Betteridge’s Law of Headlines suggests, the answer is no.  Indeed, the truth is much less salacious—and far more interesting—than any of the reactions above.
> 
> To understand why, we need to talk about the difference between owned and unowned technologies. Owned technologies are easy to grasp, because they’re so prevalent. They’re technologies that are developed and shaped by a defined group, usually someone selling it. The original AT&T phone system was an owned technology—and so are its descendants like Verizon landline services and mobile phone networks. TV broadcasting is owned, in the sense that governments around the world have asserted power over the airwaves that permeate their territories, deciding who can use what bandwidth and why—and those with licenses then, with exceptions determined by regulators, decide what to broadcast. If you’re reading this article on a digital device, chances are good that its hardware is owned—Apple or HP or Lenovo designed and built it—and so, too, is its operating system, whether iOS, Android, or Windows.
> 
> If any of these technologies were to break, we’d turn to their vendors for an explanation and a fix. If a government wanted to affect how they work, it would seek to pressure or outright require certain changes—the way that, for example, the U.S. Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act requires AT&T and Verizon to design their telephone networks to be responsive to lawful wiretap orders.
> 
> But owned isn’t the whole story. Occasionally unowned configurations emerge. In 1983, we might have assumed that walled gardens such as CompuServe and America Online would keep being the way we communicate with one another—classic, owned information services for which we paid for access by the minute. But something odd happened: An experimental network, subsidized by the U.S. National Science Foundation, shaped by researchers at universities and corporate think tanks, came about. This Internet was meant to provide compatibility among any number of smaller networks, and unlike CompuServe and its siblings, it had no CEO, business plan, or budget.  CompuServe and AOL become mere ways to access the Internet, rather than their original incarnations as globe-spanning one-stop information shops whose subscribers could be reached only by special arrangement with them.
> 
> Access CompuServe and you’d be asked for an ID and password to prove you’re a paying subscriber, and then you’d be shown a main menu of content and activities selected by CompuServe to appeal to you. By comparison, when you access the Internet, there’s nothing: no main menu, no meter from the overarching network, and no persistent identity upon it.  (That’s why various Web sites fight one another to be the home page of your browser.) The Internet was less a particular set of hardware and more a set of protocols. You are simply assigned a number—which is not really meant to identify you personally—that lets you reach out to any other number on the network with bits.
> 
> But it turns out that for the Internet to work, certain functions benefit greatly from a little centralized record keeping. To surf the Net with your unique number, it helps greatly if that number isn’t already assigned to someone else—assign it twice and bits can get confused as they wend their way towards you (or is it towards your doppelganger?). Same problem with phone numbers: they  shouldn’t belong to more than one pizza shop at a time. So someone had to maintain a master list of IP addresses for the simple purpose of not handing them out twice. That someone was Jon Postel, a computer scientist who in essence drew the short straw to have to keep track. As the Internet’s protocols were written up it seemed a little informal to say with a technical document, “Well, a guy named Jon performs this function,” so Jon was labeled to be something much more official-sounding: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA. No official paperwork was filed; nothing was incorporated. Still no CEO.  Just IANA. Jon also helped get domain names going, so we could visit mnemonic-sounding addresses like www.newrepublic.com instead of 166.78.85.160. (Both work, though – try it!)
> 
> Jon asked various colleagues to manage lists like all those names ending in .com, and others ending in .org, etc. He maintained a list, called the root, of those names. It was Jon who agreed to create .uk for those interested in United Kingdom-themed domain names. When he realized that domain names were taking on real meaning to people, he looked for other ways to create names rather than just deciding on his own. (For countries, he found a list of country names maintained by the International Standards Organization and stuck to it—creating names for lots of peoples whose governments hadn’t formally asked for them.) And when disputes came up, he looked for consensus to settle them, such as when there was objection over the person originally entrusted to maintain names under .pn, for Pitcairn Island, population 50. (The objection was lodged by the entire adult population of Pitcairn Island, with the exception of the trustee and his wife.) It took years to settle the issue.
> 
> By 1997 it was clear that having Jon simply run numbering and names, however fairly, was tricky. Entrepreneurs stood to gain millions should they be entrusted to register names in a new domain like .web or .chef. How to decide how many more to create and who would get them? The U.S. government, in the form of the Department of Commerce, began a process to create a “new IANA,” one supported by the Internet as a whole. This was seen as consistent with the idea of privatizing the Internet. But note that this process skated over the U.S. government’s authority to choose a new shepherd to begin with. Why was a new leader something for the U.S. government to designate? It wasn’t as if there were local airwaves over which the government claimed power. The only real hook was that American funding had subsidized the creation of Internet protocols—but these were grants, not fee-for-service; subsidies, not permission. And the small fees the government awarded to companies that maintained the domain name databases—after Jon found it boring to maintain on his own—were ones that the companies would be delighted to simply waive, charging Internet users directly instead.
> 
> In reality, the U.S. government got to choose for two reasons, neither of which had to do with any legal authority. First, the government made sure that there wasn’t really a choice for anyone to make: the ultimate ballot it was to cast had only one entry on it. When three entities stepped forward to be the new IANA, the Department of Commerce persuaded them to negotiate with one another until only one proposal was left. Choosing something from a list of one is not controversial. Second, nearly everyone concerned about the future of the Internet wanted certainty and stability. So the U.S. government’s “decision” to recognize ICANN as the new IANA in 1998 was welcomed as a rallying cry to get a move on with the allocation of numbers and names. ICANN, a California non-profit, had a Byzantine set of by-laws to make Madison proud: Board members were appointed from various constituencies (“stakeholders” in governance parlance) and from various regions of the world. But it is not run by the governments of the world. Many had seen the way the UN operated and had little interest in replicating it. And in 1998, the U.S. government’s recognition of ICANN took the form of a cooperative agreement between ICANN and the Commerce Department spelling out certain minimal responsibilities–and a nominal way for the U.S. government to pull the plug if something went terribly wrong.
> 
> With this background in mind, we can process the news that the U.S. government is letting that agreement ultimately lapse.
> 
> First, the U.S. government control so far has had minimal impact on how ICANN has operated. For example, there was some consternation within the U.S. Congress about the creation of a .xxx domain, which was within ICANN’s purview to create. This likely delayed .xxx, but it didn’t stop it. And that accords with the government’s role in ICANN’s creation: Had it tried to be more heavy-handed, it’s not clear that it could have pulled off the move to a new IANA. Whoever newly contracts with ICANN for these IANA functions—yes, once again the U.S. government has vaguely called for a new organization to step up—will be similarly constrained. So there’s no obvious place for Russia or China to take control.
> 
> Second, the plausible ways in which ICANN could trample free speech are narrow. ICANN does not itself hand out domain names—it only designates who runs each list of names. ICANN does not directly “shut down” names or otherwise deal in individual decisions. So far it has established  procedures in some domains for trademark-like disputes to play out. But these are only over domain names themselves—not over claims of behavior taking place more generally on a Web site. Register gap.clothing and be prepared to justify your action through an ICANN-approved process; sell fake Gap clothing on your website goodclothes.clothing and that process won’t have anything to say about it. Any attempt to impose broad-based censorship through domain name assignments would be met with stiff resistance by the operators of domain name registries, and ultimately by the Internet Service Providers who choose to consult those registries for information about what destination each name represents. Anyone trying to tighten the screws too much will simply strip them.
> 
> Taxes? ICANN takes a cut of fees generated by registering and renewing names for many domains like .com and many new ones in the process of being unveiled—so much so that ICANN enjoys tens of millions of dollars in income each year—but it doesn’t and can’t otherwise impose a “tax on Internet use.”
> 
> Thus last week’s news is simply about symbolism. Having the U.S. nominally, but not really, controlling the modest functions of top-level numbering and name assignments provided ammunition to those who think the Internet should be utterly stateless—some of whom, oddly enough, might favor turning over ICANN’s functions to the International Telecommunications Union, which is an arm of the United Nations and has states as its members. To eliminate this symbolic U.S. involvement, an action envisioned from the moment of ICANN’s creation, helps address that complaint, while costing nothing.  As ICANN’s own Q-and-A on the topic put it:
> 
> How does this announcement affect the individual Internet user?
> 
> This announcement does not affect Internet users and their use of the Internet. However, all Internet users have a stake in how the Internet is run, and it is therefore important to get involved.
> 
> Confusing: Nothing to see here, but Internet governance matters, so go on and get involved. Such are the puzzles of unowned technologies. They can become incalculably powerful even with no one at the helm—or perhaps precisely because of it. Numbering and naming is a tiny part of the Internet, and governing it is of interest mostly because it’s one of the few things we can point to where decisions can be made. But these decisions happen by consensus, and are implemented one ISP and router at a time, rather than some kind of fiat. You may be reading this article at newrepublic.com, and if you are, you’re here because your ISP, your operating system vendor, your browser maker and you are agreeing to map that name to this online place.  Any could change it, notwithstanding actions of governments and institutions like ICANN.  Internet protocols at large aren’t implemented through anyone’s fiat; they are generated through open processes channeled through unincorporated organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (motto: “We reject kings, presidents, and voting: we believe in rough consensus and running code”), and then implemented through the actions of hardware and software makers.
> 
> The Internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated. To be sure, it is delicate in many ways, with its unowned character threatened from many quarters. But rest easy that ICANN isn’t one of them.
> 
> Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of law and professor of computer science at Harvard University, and author of The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It.  He is a former trustee of the Internet Society, which facilitates the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force.  He served on a membership advisory committee to ICANN in 1998, testified to Congress about it in 2000, and was among the authors of the Berkman Center’s 2010 report done at the request of ICANN, “Accountability and Transparency at ICANN: An Independent Review.”
> 
> ---
> Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/7cb0e427/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Mar 26 08:11:34 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:41:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Zittrain: The misguided freakout over
 ICANN
In-Reply-To: <20D862A7-ACE7-4B28-803D-A8A411AD54D3@hserus.net>
References: <CAKx4trgeTmnFPTtg62VaG3KCN+D=ReRr8i5dNzvDBC=H3O093Q@mail.gmail.com> <20D862A7-ACE7-4B28-803D-A8A411AD54D3@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <5332C3F6.8020900@ITforChange.net>

On 03/26/2014 05:19 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> FUD debunked
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> No, Barack Obama Isn't Handing Control of the Internet Over to China
>> BY JONATHAN ZITTRAIN
>>
>> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117093/us-withdraws-icann-why-its-no-big-deal
>>
>> On March 14, the U.S. government announced that it would seek to 
>> relinquish a privileged role in the management of Internet names and 
>> numbers. An organization called ICANN—the non-profit Internet 
>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers—is to continue doing what 
>> it’s doing without maintaining an ongoing contract with the 
>> Department of Commerce to do it.  And what does ICANN do?  It helps 
>> keep IP addresses in order, ensuring that each address—used to let 
>> parties on the Internet identify one another—is not assigned more 
>> than once.  And it facilitates the addition of “top level domains,” 
>> those suffixes like .com, .org, .uk, and more recently, .clothing, 
>> which, with a concatenation of names to their left, become the names 
>> for nearly all online destinations, including newrepublic.com 
>> <http://newrepublic.com>. A receding role for the U.S. government has 
>> been anticipated for over a decade, and the move is both wise and of 
>> little impact.  Some reaction has been surprisingly alarmist.
>>
>> A Wall Street Journal columnist described it as “America’s Internet 
>> surrender.” Said one member of Congress: “Giving up control of ICANN 
>> will allow countries like China and Russia, that don’t place the same 
>> value in freedom of speech, to better define how the internet looks 
>> and operates.”
>>

This is the natural consequence of the drama that USG and friends put up 
at WCIT, whose unstated aim was to debunk and stall the desire of 
developing countries for a democratic IG. The chickens are coming home 
to roost....
(I had raised this in my previous post as well).

Of course,  real democratisation of IG needs to go far far  beyond that 
of ICANN/CIR reform (which in itself is important),  it needs to address 
the core issues which provoked President Rousseff to cancel her US visit 
last year...

regards
Guru



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/404b876f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Mar 26 10:11:51 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:41:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for
 Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
In-Reply-To: <C76AFB11252B45A38EE4037C2B0CECE5@Toshiba>
References: <CAK-FJAebkYAm1pwJvqzG=z0THu64su7UNhVxYmXCjhHh3hKHRg@mail.gmail.com> <C76AFB11252B45A38EE4037C2B0CECE5@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5332E027.4040006@ITforChange.net>

On 03/25/2014 06:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Carolina (copies to multiple lists taken out)
> s
snip
>
> Ian Peter
> PS Australia perhaps should be added to the list of countries who 
> should be forbidden use of surveillance software after using it to 
> advance commercial offshore oil deals with the poor neighbouring 
> country of East Timor (not to mention using it to tap the phone of the 
> wife of the President of Indonesia). But then, I guess we had better 
> leave privacy out of any considerations on limitations of software 
> sales here...
>

Dear Ian
Why do you think  we should "better leave privacy out of any 
considerations on limitations of software sales". Is this not an issue 
for public policy?
regards,
Guru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/d8c9c001/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 12:24:35 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:24:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Webinar NETmundial: On the path to Brazil
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6i898+KWzsnBX1ucEYM1qOnunTgHbvHTkMxZGhho8_1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Just received this from Stephanie at Diplo:

Friends,

I'd like to extend an invitation to join us on Friday 28th at 14h UTC/GMT
for our March webinar on the NETmundial meeting.

*Raúl Echeberría*, executive director of LACNIC and co-chair of
NETmundial's Executive Multistakeholder Committee, and *Rodrigo de la Parra*,
ICANN vice-president, Stakeholder Engagement, Latin America and the
Caribbean, will update us with developments in Latin America in the
preparation for NETmundial.

Please read the announcement below. To attend, register at
http://www.diplomacy.edu/registrations/webinar-netmundial-path-brazil

Hope to see many of you on Friday,
Stephanie


   Is this email not displaying correctly?   View this email in your
browser<http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=bf63fdf592&e=330e500107>
*March Internet governance webinar*
NETmundial: On the path to Brazil
Dear friends,

We would like to invite you to our next IG webinar on *Friday 28th March at
14h UTC/GMT*, on the *Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
Internet Governance (NETmundial)*, which is taking place in Brazil in April.

*Raúl Echeberría
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=68d592da32&e=330e500107>*,
executive director of LACNIC and co-chair of NETmundial's Executive
Multistakeholder Committee, and *Rodrigo de la Parra
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=f5459295f7&e=330e500107>*,
ICANN vice-president, Stakeholder Engagement, Latin America and the
Caribbean, will update us with developments in Latin America in the
preparation for NETmundial.

The webinar will address the following, among other aspects:

   - What can we expect from NETmundial in terms of a tangible outcome?
   - With various IG bodies engaged in the process, how can the IG
   community participate in the run-up to the meeting and during the meeting
   itself?
   - Based on the contributions received, what are the top three items on
   NETmundial's agenda?
   - What type of 'Latin American' flavour can we expect at NETmundial
   (issues, priorities and actors)?

To participate, please fill in the registration
form<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=9dfcd6e600&e=330e500107>.
Attendance is free; registration is required. The link to join the webinar
will be e-mailed on the day, shortly before the start of the webinar.
Participants will be able to discuss the topic with the presenters and
other participants present for the webinar.

Looking forward to e-seeing you!
Diplo's IG webinars team
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=a83a6e3ab3&e=330e500107>
Like
us on FaceBook<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=d2c4abaa56&e=330e500107>
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=fc1ef05129&e=330e500107>
Follow
us on Twitter<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=9ac95101c3&e=330e500107>
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=5f82b1354a&e=330e500107>
Our
website<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=cc916a1a8e&e=330e500107>
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=51f0257a19&e=330e500107>
Our
network<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=ea69de9197&e=330e500107>
  *Copyright
(c) 2014 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.*
You are receiving this email because you expressed an interest in
DiploFoundation's webinars.
 ------------------------------

-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/14e4973b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 14:02:36 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:02:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] OTI Launches New "Transatlantic Dialogues on Security
 and Freedom in a Digital Age" Project
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeZqvALqOpHrp09ky56qRqLZcSU1+R5=+Db0zg3gbSJXg@mail.gmail.com>

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 26, 2014

PRESS RELEASE
Open Technology Institute Launches New "Transatlantic Dialogues on Security
and Freedom in a Digital Age" Project with Berlin-based Global Public
Policy Institute

WASHINGTON, DC --Together with the Global Public Policy Institute<
http://www.gppi.net/news/news_item/article/gppi-launches-joint-project-on-freedom-and-security-in-the-digital-age/>
in Germany, New America's Open Technology Institute has launched a new
project called "Transatlantic Dialogues on Security and Freedom in a
Digital Age." Over the next two years, the project will bring together
experts from the United States and Europe to debate and research the
balance between security and freedom.

"At a time of significant Transatlantic tension on this topic, it is
especially important that we build pathways for reasoned, research-driven
international dialogue on controversial issues such as Internet governance,
fragmentation, and cybersecurity," said Tim Maurer, research fellow at New
America's Open Technology Institute. "We hope that our work in partnership
with the Global Public Policy Institute can help provide fresh answers to
tough questions about the future, at this critical juncture in the
development of the global and open Internet."

The project, which will take place over the course of 2014 and 2015, will
produce two policy papers, a conference in Washington DC, and regular
policy breakfasts and is a unique opportunity to address some difficult
challenges at a very critical time in Transatlantic relations. Experts from
the Open Technology Institute and GPPi will write the two papers. In the
first, the authors will examine proposals by governments on how to
re-engineer the Internet to ensure "technological sovereignty" in response
to concerns over US surveillance in the context of the Internet's continued
expansion. In the second paper, the authors will craft policy
recommendations to ensure a free and open Internet in the event of a major
cyber incident. In addition, regular articles, op-eds and blog posts will
make the key project-findings accessible to a broader audience.

 "GPPi is very happy to partner with New America's OTI," said Thorsten
Benner, co-founder and director of GPPi. "We look forward to informing the
policy debates on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond during this
critical stage in the development of global internet politics."

The project relies on the knowledge of professionals working in various
sectors (government, business, civil society and academia) as well as
disciplines (politics, law and computer science). A high-level steering
committee made up of senior policymakers, academics and private sector
representatives from the US and Europe advises the project team. The
project is supported by the Delegation of the European Union to the United
States.

Learn more about the themes and people involved here<
http://www.digitaldebates.org/home/>.

###

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Jenny
Mallamo, Media Relations Associate, at mallamo at newamerica.org<mailto:
Mallamo at newamerica.net> or (202) 596-3368.

About New America
New America is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that
invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of
challenges facing the United States. To learn more, please visit us online
at www.newamerica.org <http://www.newamerica.net/> or follow us on Twitter
@NewAmerica<https://twitter.com/NewAmerica>.

About the Open Technology Institute
The Open Technology Institute (OTI) is a global pioneer in developing
innovative communications technologies and policies to enable communities
to fully participate in the global economy, and freely shape their
democracies. To learn more, please visit us online at
http://oti.newamerica.org and on Twitter @OTI<https://twitter.com/OTI>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/c3a5e1a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 14:25:03 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:25:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Marco Civil in English
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

(sorry for cross-posting)

attached I send a draft version in english done by Raquel Gatto from ISOC
Brazil.

Articles of interest:

3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III -
protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security,
stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII -
preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for
business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release
saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different
prices for speeds and services)
7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression and
privacy
9 - NN
11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article say
when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main
issue here)
13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider
15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP liability
just after that
21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content
with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers
in Brazil )

Best (and thank you Raquel!)

C

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/7b0ac9b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 14:30:04 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:30:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] Marco Civil in English
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uGAQJBZUMNYPxE9tV9p5KfvHiBDbY9dEFSc0Fg856HkLw@mail.gmail.com>

No attachment, Carol.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> (sorry for cross-posting)
>
> attached I send a draft version in english done by Raquel Gatto from ISOC
> Brazil.
>
> Articles of interest:
>
> 3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III -
> protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security,
> stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII -
> preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for
> business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release
> saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different
> prices for speeds and services)
> 7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression
> and privacy
> 9 - NN
> 11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article
> say when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main
> issue here)
> 13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider
> 15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
> 18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP liability
> just after that
> 21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content
> with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers
> in Brazil )
>
> Best (and thank you Raquel!)
>
> C
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Diego R. Canabarro*
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
diego.canabarro [at] *ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>*
diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
Cell # +55-51-8108-1098
Skype: diegocanabarro

*GT Governança Digital*

*Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo (CEGOV)*

Campus do Vale, prédio 43322 - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500
Porto Alegre / RS CEP 91509-900
Fone: +55 51 3308.9860 / 3308.9934 / Site: *www.cegov.ufrgs.br
<http://www.cegov.ufrgs.br/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/7e415857/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 14:48:09 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:48:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Marco Civil in English
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdOAOd+Q1z2xAOMOq7qO5STLTy=s6gwyG+DP8hMrpS9_Q@mail.gmail.com>

ops


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> (sorry for cross-posting)
>
> attached I send a draft version in english done by Raquel Gatto from ISOC
> Brazil.
>
> Articles of interest:
>
> 3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III -
> protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security,
> stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII -
> preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for
> business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release
> saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different
> prices for speeds and services)
> 7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression
> and privacy
> 9 - NN
> 11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article
> say when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main
> issue here)
> 13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider
> 15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
> 18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP liability
> just after that
> 21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content
> with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers
> in Brazil )
>
> Best (and thank you Raquel!)
>
> C
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/7297a0d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MCI_INGLES (update 25.03.2014) .doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 172032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/7297a0d4/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 14:48:29 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:48:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Marco Civil in English
In-Reply-To: <CA+MV=uGAQJBZUMNYPxE9tV9p5KfvHiBDbY9dEFSc0Fg856HkLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MV=uGAQJBZUMNYPxE9tV9p5KfvHiBDbY9dEFSc0Fg856HkLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcea0zG-MD1GyFKy3ymcPb_4dHdRetBZAgkQzikF4Kbow@mail.gmail.com>

dah...


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> No attachment, Carol.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> (sorry for cross-posting)
>>
>> attached I send a draft version in english done by Raquel Gatto from ISOC
>> Brazil.
>>
>> Articles of interest:
>>
>> 3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III
>> - protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security,
>> stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII -
>> preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for
>> business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release
>> saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different
>> prices for speeds and services)
>> 7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression
>> and privacy
>> 9 - NN
>> 11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article
>> say when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main
>> issue here)
>> 13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider
>> 15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
>> 18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP
>> liability just after that
>> 21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content
>> with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers
>> in Brazil )
>>
>> Best (and thank you Raquel!)
>>
>> C
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Diego R. Canabarro*
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
> diego.canabarro [at] *ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>*
> diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
> Cell # +55-51-8108-1098
> Skype: diegocanabarro
>
> *GT Governança Digital*
>
> *Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo (CEGOV)*
>
> Campus do Vale, prédio 43322 - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500
> Porto Alegre / RS CEP 91509-900
> Fone: +55 51 3308.9860 / 3308.9934 / Site: *www.cegov.ufrgs.br
> <http://www.cegov.ufrgs.br/>*
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/789ac67e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MCI_INGLES (update 25.03.2014) .doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 172032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/789ac67e/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From francis at francisaugusto.com  Wed Mar 26 15:39:33 2014
From: francis at francisaugusto.com (Francis Augusto Medeiros)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:39:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of
 Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3ZCPDXJwuX+-ntitVaYC0b7jCDD1W=UuoKZMioPb5cXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3ZCPDXJwuX+-ntitVaYC0b7jCDD1W=UuoKZMioPb5cXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47A0BE44-3F69-460D-94F0-B51885BB94B7@francisaugusto.com>

Fantastic!!


On 26/03/2014, at 01:22, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Great victory of every individual and organization that participated in this process since the public consultation! And we share this victory with all our friends around the world who supported this fight, who wrote texts, analysis and who gave us space to talk about Marco Civil and keep it on the agenda all though the years. THANK YOU!
> 
> This was a huge a very important chapter of the battle. Now comes the Senate! :)
> 
> Marília
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
> 
> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
> 
> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause, Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
> 
> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
> 
> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of expression and protection of privacy!"
> 
> I am happy!
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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


__
Francis Augusto Medeiros
www.francisaugusto.com
Mobile: +47 45 17 14 91
Home: +47 21 04 96 54 
Oslo, Norway



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/d774817a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: linkedin_1_1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1611 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/d774817a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: twitter_1_1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1709 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/d774817a/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: skype_1_1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1839 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/d774817a/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Mar 26 15:48:27 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:48:27 +1100
Subject: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for
 Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
In-Reply-To: <5332E027.4040006@ITforChange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAebkYAm1pwJvqzG=z0THu64su7UNhVxYmXCjhHh3hKHRg@mail.gmail.com> <C76AFB11252B45A38EE4037C2B0CECE5@Toshiba> <5332E027.4040006@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <1D4BA807C52C4CBF9EAE87280A42284B@Toshiba>

apologies for misunderstandings Guru, I was being ironic.

From: Guru गुरु 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective

On 03/25/2014 06:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

  Hi Carolina (copies to multiple lists taken out)
  s
snip


  Ian Peter

  PS Australia perhaps should be added to the list of countries who should be forbidden use of surveillance software after using it to advance commercial offshore oil deals with the poor neighbouring country of East Timor (not to mention using it to tap the phone of the wife of the President of Indonesia). But then, I guess we had better leave privacy out of any considerations on limitations of software sales here...



Dear Ian
Why do you think  we should "better leave privacy out of any considerations on limitations of software sales". Is this not an issue for public policy? 
regards,
Guru



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140327/77a0feb5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 16:16:01 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:16:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of
 Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6cRCXRx-yG6xGxqe02x9ZUo1=QRrswri9B6ahQgmVnLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Caro Carlos,
Estou muito feliz por você
Abraços
Deirdre


On 25 March 2014 20:15, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>
> Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year battle,
> "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights Framework) was approved
> by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>
> Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the cause,
> Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>
> "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
> neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>
> "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality, freedom of
> expression and protection of privacy!"
>
> I am happy!
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/b5d16a2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Mar 26 16:19:49 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:19:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Brazil's Marco Civil approved by Chamber of
 Deputies!!
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6cRCXRx-yG6xGxqe02x9ZUo1=QRrswri9B6ahQgmVnLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53321C3D.9040802@cafonso.ca> <CAMz5XN6cRCXRx-yG6xGxqe02x9ZUo1=QRrswri9B6ahQgmVnLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53333665.4010308@apc.org>

Congratulations c.a. and all the others that have worked so hard on this.

APC will be issuing a press statement on this soon which we will also
post here.

Anriette


On 26/03/2014 22:16, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> Caro Carlos, 
> Estou muito feliz por você 
> Abraços 
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 25 March 2014 20:15, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>     [sorry for eventual duplicates, you will understand why]
>
>     Dear people, very good news from Brazil: after a nearly four-year
>     battle, "Marco Civil da Internet" (Internet's Civil Rights
>     Framework) was approved by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.
>
>     Our dear ex-minister of Culture and staunch militant for the
>     cause, Gilberto Gil, just posted on twitter:
>
>     "Vencemos! O #MarcoCivil foi aprovado!! Por uma rede
>     neutralizada,liberdade de expressão e proteção à privacidade!"
>
>     "We won! #MarcoCivil has been approved!! For net neutrality,
>     freedom of expression and protection of privacy!"
>
>     I am happy!
>
>     fraternal regards
>
>     --c.a.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/233d2f58/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Mar 26 17:51:54 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:21:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Marco Civil in English
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcea0zG-MD1GyFKy3ymcPb_4dHdRetBZAgkQzikF4Kbow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcmki-oU2bUEOtOhnMBGD+vH7WLHJ47VMO2=JfxM45S8A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+MV=uGAQJBZUMNYPxE9tV9p5KfvHiBDbY9dEFSc0Fg856HkLw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAcea0zG-MD1GyFKy3ymcPb_4dHdRetBZAgkQzikF4Kbow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B872D077-EB4E-446F-AE91-D2FFDA59FB5C@hserus.net>

As I read it, it will be very difficult for internet service providers to maintain security of email / messaging and internet traffic.

For example, sometimes, to report security incidents, connection logs may have to be shared with another ISP (to show details of an attack for example - certainly the username must be anonymized but destination / source IP address would be needed to show traffic flows), or to adequately perform spam filtering / network security filtering for attacks or malware (which often uses some amount of packet inspection or email content inspection.

I admire the clarity of the rest of the bill, but a degree of security measures need to be maintained and safe harbour provided for these security measures, in the own interest of the users.  Was any input provided by cert-br to Marco Civil?

--srs (iPad)

> On 27-Mar-2014, at 0:18, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> dah...
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No attachment, Carol.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> (sorry for cross-posting)
>>> 
>>> attached I send a draft version in english done by Raquel Gatto from ISOC Brazil. 
>>> 
>>> Articles of interest:
>>> 
>>> 3 - principles: I - freedom of expression, II - privacy protection, III - protection of personal data, IV - NN, V - preservation of security, stability and functionality of the network, VI - liability of actors, VII - preservation of the participate nature of the internet,  VII - freedoms for business models - which telcos have already commented on in a press release saying this is freedom of consumer choice and is related to different prices for speeds and services) 
>>> 7 and 8 - good articles regulating and protecting freedom of expression and privacy
>>> 9 - NN
>>> 11 - they took out mandate to nationalize databases and now the article say when the Brazilian law is applicable (jurisdiction was always the main issue here) 
>>> 13 - log retention for 1 year by the access provider 
>>> 15 - log retention for 6 months by the application provider
>>> 18, 19 and 20 - take down of content with judicial order and ISP liability just after that
>>> 21 - ISP subsidiary liability related to publication of private content with nudity (a result of a outcry related to the of a couple of teenagers in Brazil ) 
>>> 
>>> Best (and thank you Raquel!)
>>> 
>>> C
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Carolina Rossini 
>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
>>> Open Technology Institute
>>> New America Foundation
>>> //
>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>> + 1 6176979389
>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>> skype: carolrossini
>>> @carolinarossini
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Diego R. Canabarro
>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>> Cell # +55-51-8108-1098
>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>> 
>> GT Governança Digital
>> Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo (CEGOV) 
>> Campus do Vale, prédio 43322 - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 
>> Porto Alegre / RS CEP 91509-900 
>> Fone: +55 51 3308.9860 / 3308.9934 / Site: www.cegov.ufrgs.br
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> <MCI_INGLES (update 25.03.2014) .doc>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140327/84528173/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 20:19:33 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:19:33 -0700
Subject: [governance] Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism
 and Global (Internet) Governance
Message-ID: <0b7901cf4952$3b2b67c0$b1823740$@gmail.com>

Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet)
Governance <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/?p=1088> 

 

M 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/1d7dab13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 20:36:06 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:36:06 -0700
Subject: Whoops: Bad Link RE: [governance] Blogpost: The Multistakeholder
 Model, Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet) Governance
Message-ID: <0b8c01cf4954$8ae99c80$a0bcd580$@gmail.com>

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-libe
ralism-and-global-internet-governance/

 

http://t.co/EU8F1LgUn6

 

Apologies,

 

Mike

 

From: Felicity Ruby [mailto:flickruby at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:32 PM
To: michael gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model,
Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet) Governance

 

Michael your link is bad

 

 <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/> Gurstein's Community Informatics

Mike Gurstein's comments on enabling and empowering communities with
information and communications technologies and other stuff.


Not Found


Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching
will help.

Search for: 

 

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:19 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet)
Governance <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/?p=1088> 

 

M 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140326/c42ad6bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Mar 26 22:07:26 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:07:26 +1200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiA3zHmGqNSiDsSxRMUBnvi_5q_90n4_RUU2OC=FOsQCbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA3zHmGqNSiDsSxRMUBnvi_5q_90n4_RUU2OC=FOsQCbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBGa4SWTnB2s9wLA6cJCvFdOUAnxxysR8u3Mvj=eT4trg@mail.gmail.com>

Further to the previous email on notification on calls to submit Workshop
Proposals. Guidelines need to be complied with, kindly visit
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/submit-a-proposal

Regards,
Sala


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The United Nations Internet Governance Forum Secretariat through the
> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) are now accepting Workshop Proposals
> for this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
>
> Visit: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>
> Last year the IGC organised and hosted a Workshop on Multistakeholder
> Selection Processes: Accountability and Transparency where it worked
> alongside other Stakeholders such as the ICC Basis, ISOC and other
> independent persons. The community may wish to explore whether there is
> merit on organising a follow up workshop on this matter.
>
> It will also be good to see other IGC Workshops on other issues and
> matters important to the community where we could have volunteers to
> moderate. This could also mean working alongside other stakeholders etc. It
> might also be good to think about having some kind of Civil Society Plenary
> as a possible side event to enable all civil society organisations and
> their representatives.
>
> The community would also be advised to identify priority areas for
> advocacy and identify partners and collaborators. There is also room for
> civil society to better organise itself through organised "rapportering",
> daily consolidated press releases at the IGF, and volunteers for social
> media engagement.
>
> Fully utilising our global presence could also be key. We also need to
> identify how we can take priority and focal areas and identify targeted
> outcomes etc. Whatever, we decide, we should start the planning and
> thinking now. If ever there was a time to have functional and cohesive
> advocacy it would be now.
>
> With every best wish,
> Sala
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140327/54f04bc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Mar 26 23:44:24 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:14:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for
 Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
In-Reply-To: <1D4BA807C52C4CBF9EAE87280A42284B@Toshiba>
References: <CAK-FJAebkYAm1pwJvqzG=z0THu64su7UNhVxYmXCjhHh3hKHRg@mail.gmail.com> <C76AFB11252B45A38EE4037C2B0CECE5@Toshiba> <5332E027.4040006@ITforChange.net> <1D4BA807C52C4CBF9EAE87280A42284B@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <53339E98.5010405@ITforChange.net>

Thanks Ian, that was a relief :-)

Public policy will need to cover some kind of social/public/community 
audit processes on all proprietary software used by the general public / 
public authorities. Of course release code under GPL would be a better 
option wherever possible. This will apply to google search as well..

Though, I dont see this having any chance of happening under the MS 
umbrella where deep pocket private interests can successfully drown out 
any voices for the public interest...

warm regards,
Guru

On 03/27/2014 01:18 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> apologies for misunderstandings Guru, I was being ironic.
> *From:* Guru गुरु <mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:11 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] New Report: Current Export Controls for 
> Surveillance Tools are Outdated and Ineffective
> On 03/25/2014 06:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Hi Carolina (copies to multiple lists taken out)
>> s
> snip
>> Ian Peter
>> PS Australia perhaps should be added to the list of countries who 
>> should be forbidden use of surveillance software after using it to 
>> advance commercial offshore oil deals with the poor neighbouring 
>> country of East Timor (not to mention using it to tap the phone of 
>> the wife of the President of Indonesia). But then, I guess we had 
>> better leave privacy out of any considerations on limitations of 
>> software sales here...
>>
>
> Dear Ian
> Why do you think  we should "better leave privacy out of any 
> considerations on limitations of software sales". Is this not an issue 
> for public policy?
> regards,
> Guru
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140327/a4b04edb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From rpelletier at isoc.org  Wed Mar 26 23:56:26 2014
From: rpelletier at isoc.org (Ray Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:56:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_Remarkable_Internet_Governance_Network?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_=E2=80=93_Part_I_=7C_Global_Solution_Networks?=
Message-ID: <AA3E548C-960E-41AB-B040-8EEA5731A9A7@isoc.org>

From Lynn St.Amour and Don Tapscott. 

http://gsnetworks.org/research_posts/the-remarkable-internet-governance-network-part-i/
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From briangutterman at gmail.com  Thu Mar 27 00:04:53 2014
From: briangutterman at gmail.com (Brian Gutterman)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:04:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_Remarkable_Internet_Governance_Net?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?work_=E2=80=93_Part_I_=7C_Global_Solution_Networks?=
In-Reply-To: <AA3E548C-960E-41AB-B040-8EEA5731A9A7@isoc.org>
References: <AA3E548C-960E-41AB-B040-8EEA5731A9A7@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <270F3B9D-35B2-436D-9DDE-D14AB355DBCD@gmail.com>

Good 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier at isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> From Lynn St.Amour and Don Tapscott. 
> 
> http://gsnetworks.org/research_posts/the-remarkable-internet-governance-network-part-i/
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar 27 10:16:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:16:30 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] What is MSism?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi7BYdgEJjzmb4f0r1GNyBWCPEODjfxVZfN2SgVHZnUvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net> <7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org> <20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net> <170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org> <5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxi7BYdgEJjzmb4f0r1GNyBWCPEODjfxVZfN2SgVHZnUvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com>

Tks McTim,

That paper does provide some clarity while overall reinforcing my central
point  -- multistakeholderism transfers power to the beneficiaries of the
Internet and away from the democracy that gives protection to everyone else.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:12 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] What is MSism?

Michael,


I believe all of your queries RE: MSism should be answered by this doc:

http://gsnetworks.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Remarkable-Internet-Governance-
Network-Part-I.pdf

rgds,

McTim

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> My contribution to this discussion...
>
>
>
> Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism and Global 
> (Internet) Governance
>
>
>
> M
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



--
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 qshatti at gmail.com  Thu Mar 27 13:58:22 2014
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:58:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] Kuwait IT Society Statement Regarding the NTIA
 Announcement
Message-ID: <CAC2SYrPvJOpNcjaGRQRv4O=BfGhVzqoEnwZ8V5G2p+p1T2vmVA@mail.gmail.com>

*Kuwait Information Technology Society Statement *
*Regarding The *
*NTIA Announcement for Its Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name
Functions*

27 March 2014

Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS) welcomes the U.S. National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announcement on
its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
multistakeholder community. The announcement represents a major step toward
an independent global internet governance framework for the Internet Eco
System and its critical resources.

KITS welcomes further the steps taken by the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to globalize its presence and the recent
establishment of its regional offices around the world to improve its
outreach and engagement with all Internet stakeholders groups. These steps
are regarded as a positive development toward the internationalization of
the ICANN.

The NTIA announcement, in its request for the ICANN to convene global
stakeholders to develop a transition proposal, represents an opportunity
for all multistakeholders groups from different regions of the world to get
involved in this process, to reflect their views and to contribute actively
to the transition proposal. The emphasis of the NTIA announcement on
supporting a multistakeholder process and maintaining the security,
stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is another positive
development that will lead to a broad community support for the expected
transition plan. Within that respect, it is important to emphasize that the
outcome of this process should emphasize that such a transition should be
evolutionary and the daily operational activities of the Internet should
remain a private technical function not influenced by any government or
inter-governmental organization.

KITS, among many, has noticed that ICANN in the past years and up to
present has taken many steps to improve its bottom up approach in
developing its Internet policies and procedures. ICANN and the Internet
technical community made significant efforts supporting and seeking
multistakeholder engagement to develop these polices and procedures.  We
all praise these efforts and we look forward that such approach will be
further enhanced in the future by the ICANN especially in developing the
transition plan. We welcome the ICANN statement in recognizing that all
stakeholders are "equal partners".

KITS is looking forward for its engagement in this process and it
encourages all stakeholders groups from the developing countries to be
actively involved in it. In particular, KITS urges all stakeholders groups
from the Arab World (governments, private sector, civil society, academics
and technical community) to engage and substantially contribute to this
important process and its outcome which represents a turning point in the
history of the Internet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140327/bc03e8a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From karl at cavebear.com  Thu Mar 27 14:38:20 2014
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:38:20 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] What is MSism?
In-Reply-To: <01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com>
References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net> <7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org> <20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net> <170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org> <5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxi7BYdgEJjzmb4f0r1GNyBWCPEODjfxVZfN2SgVHZnUvw@mail.gmail.com> <01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5334701C.5040202@cavebear.com>

On 03/27/2014 07:16 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> That paper does provide some clarity while overall reinforcing my central
> point  -- multistakeholderism transfers power to the beneficiaries of the
> Internet and away from the democracy that gives protection to everyone else.

I agree with your formulation.

Stakeholderism certainly does transfer power.

Stakeholderim is a rebuke not only to the notion that governance derives
from the consent of the governed but also to the principle of
one-person-one-vote.

One of the very perverse outcomes from stakeholder systems is that
opinion becomes ossified and compromise is impeded (or prevented.)

In systems where individuals are recognized as the primary element then
nuances of opinion are more readily recognized which in turn leads to
fluid coalitions and a greater institutional capacity to form
compromises or to find imaginative new solutions.

There is no doubt that individual people gain power by cooperating and
joining their voices.  Every system should allow fluid formation and
dissolution of coalitions.  But stakeholderism dictates up-front and
top-down how that joinder shall occur and makes it permanent and inflexible.

Perhaps stakeholderism is simply an optimization?  Many regulatory
bodies end up captured by those who have financial interests in the
outcome.  Stakeholderism simply skips the phase where the regulatory
body has not yet been captured and, thus, quickly and efficiently puts
the special interests into the drivers seat.

Stakeholderism transfers power, yes, but not necessarily to
"beneficiaries."  Rather, using ICANN as the baseline, stakeholderism
transfers power to groups that someone has declared have a greater
interest in the outcome than do others.  That interest is usually
financial (often an indirect financial interest - such as trademark
interests) but it also based on tribute to perceived external
authorities such as governments or selected technical bodies.

In the main I find stakeholderism to be a poisonous conception - a kind
of return to the medieval system of governance by church and guild.

	--karl--




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Mar 27 21:14:38 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:14:38 -0300
Subject: [governance] Republican lawmakers seek to halt ICANN transition
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcRnUf9+nmQt5L0SOZxvjH0cdYwuq5Pcen_4WDLSKwUbQ@mail.gmail.com>

With link to bill

Begin forwarded message:

3/27/14 4:15 PM EDT

A group of Republican lawmakers introduced a
bill<https://www.politicopro.com/f/?f=25211&inb>to stop the Obama
administration from giving up its oversight of essential
Internet functions today.

The Commerce Department this month announced it would relinquish its
contract authority over ICANN, the group that manages the Internet's domain
name system. The move was blasted by some Republicans, who said it might
give countries like Russia and China more control over the Internet.

The so-called DOTCOM Act, from Reps. John Shimkus, Todd Rokita and Marsha
Blackburn, would halt that transition pending a report from the Government
Accountability Office. The GAO report would analyze the advantages and
disadvantages of the move, as well as the "national security concerns
raised by relinquishing U.S. oversight," according to a news release. Reps.
Joe Barton, Renee Ellmers and Bob Latta also co-sponsored the bill.

"We can't let the Internet turn into another Russian land grab," Blackburn
said. "America shouldn't surrender its leadership on the world stage to a
'multistakeholder model' that's controlled by foreign governments. It's
imperative that this administration reports to Congress before they can
take any steps that would turn over control of the Internet."

Shimkus added, "We have to consider the long-term implications of
relinquishing our oversight role because once it's gone, it's gone for
good."

A spokeswoman for the NTIA, the Commerce Department agency overseeing the
process, did not immediately comment.

*-- Erin Mershon*





-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140327/86c0d7a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pouzin at well.com  Thu Mar 27 21:58:56 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 02:58:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model,
 Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet) Governance
In-Reply-To: <0b7901cf4952$3b2b67c0$b1823740$@gmail.com>
References: <0b7901cf4952$3b2b67c0$b1823740$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqqbewDr6Ly9+61H-Fpt5dUebxQYuQbg3RKrHyV_=R=Gw@mail.gmail.com>

I fully agree with Mike's post and responses in his blog. If one specific
instance of MSism may be seen as valid in the narrow IETF context, it is
plain hollow as a model of worldwide net governance, nothing more than a
smoky mirage, or a fraud.
 .
Louis
- - -

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:19 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Blogpost: The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet)
> Governance <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/?p=1088>
>
> M
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/56f7c784/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Thu Mar 27 23:45:44 2014
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:45:44 +0800
Subject: [governance] NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a
 conference call for information sharing
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bm4=0byzvRB6cK1q4murOfV-LtO4nV6ig6qtQVzpnvJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+bm4=0byzvRB6cK1q4murOfV-LtO4nV6ig6qtQVzpnvJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AE7CAB36-1BE3-4677-8C8E-015301341DC9@uol.com.br>

Thank your Andrea already shared with all lists i am part in Latin America. All the best, 

Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPad
Sorry for any typos and misspellings

> On 25/03/2014, at 22:08, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> [ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts. ]
> 
>  
> 
> In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders.
> 
>  
> 
> The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to let us know in advance so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions.
> 
>  
> 
> Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below:
> 
> Date:  8 April 201
> Time: 11:00 – 13:00 (CET)
> Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document)
> Conference room number: 1327846
> Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please note that you do NOT need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference – it's offered as an option)
>  
> 
> As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176 and http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Andrea Glorioso (Mr)
> European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
> Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development
> Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
> T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
> 
> The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
> Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne.
> 
> Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin
> 
> <20120920_EU-InternationalAccessNumbers-EN.pdf>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/5fd94df9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From meier-hahn at hiig.de  Fri Mar 28 05:45:53 2014
From: meier-hahn at hiig.de (Uta Meier-Hahn)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:45:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] Academic essay: "NETmundial: only a landmark event if
 'Digital Cold War' rhetoric abandoned"
Message-ID: <CAHJsbgO6A56tg2OhSmeUiD15GrgHEvqC3NhfJ_j=LJ2zheVFrQ@mail.gmail.com>

NETmundial: only a landmark event if 'Digital Cold War' rhetoric abandoned
The dominant narrative about the governance of the internet in media and
with high-level policymakers is misleading. Researchers Francesca Musiani
and Julia Pohle explain what stands in the way of genuine multistakeholder
internet governance as all eyes are turning towards Brazil and its
NETmundial meeting.

http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/netmundial-only-landmark-event-if-digital-cold-war-rhetoric-abandoned

-- 
[image: HIIG-Logo] <http://www.hiig.de> Uta Meier-Hahn | Wissenschaftliche
Mitarbeiterin | Doktorandenprogramm
Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft gGmbH
  Bebelplatz 1 · 10099 Berlin
T +49 30 20 93-3490 · F +49 30 20 93-3435 ·  www.hiig.de ·  [image:
Facebook-Button] <http://www.facebook.com/HIIG.Berlin>  [image:
Twitter-Button] <https://twitter.com/hiig_berlin>  [image:
Google+1-Button]<https://plus.google.com/u/0/104662709701524780855>
Gesellschaftssitz Berlin | Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg | HRB 140911B
Steuer ID 27/601/54619 | Geschäftsführung: Prof.
Dr. Jeanette Hofmann · Prof. Dr. Dr. Ingolf
Pernice · Prof. Dr. Dr. Thomas Schildhauer · Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulz
· Dr. Karina Preiß
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/3e9a2391/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Fri Mar 28 07:32:35 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:32:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Deadline Extension: Springer WWWJ - Special Issue on
 Large-scale Web Applications in Virtualized Environments
Message-ID: <00d301cf4a79$6a873da0$3f95b8e0$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]

 

****************************************************************************
*******

Springer World Wide Web Journal

 

Special Issue Call for Papers:

Large-scale Web Applications in Virtualized Environments

 

Guest Editors:

Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy,
ernesto.damiani at unimi.it <mailto:ernesto.damiani at unimi.it>  

Kokou Yetongnon, Université de Bourgogne, France, kokou at u-bourgogne.fr
<mailto:kokou at u-bourgogne.fr>  

Richard Chbeir, Université de Pau (UPPA), France, richard.chbeir at univ-pau.fr
<mailto:richard.chbeir at univ-pau.fr>  

****************************************************************************
*******

 

EXTENDED PAPER SUBMISSION: April 10th, 2014!

 

There is a lot of interest today in virtualization, with many vendors
offering virtual servers to

virtual applications and even virtual network devices. A major benefit
expected from

virtualization is dynamic scalability of Web applications based on traffic
or on clients’ demand.

Web application scalability is critical to the success of many enterprises
currently involved in

doing business on the Web and in providing information that may vary
drastically from one time

to another. Maintaining sufficient resources just to meet peak requirements
can be costly.

Virtualization-based paradigms like cloud computing provide a powerful model
that allows to

simply and securely connect users to information resources on-demand and
anywhere. Modern

Web applications are increasingly hosted in a cloud-computing
infrastructure, able to

communicate and interact with external mobile devices. Such applications
should dynamically

scale in response to changes in the workload to guarantee service level
agreements. This trend

brought about a number of new modeling, design and implementation issues for
Web

applications, including

- Models to approximate non-functional properties of virtualized,
multi-tiered Web

applications, including performance, security and privacy.

- "Cloud-aware" techniques for designing and implementing virtualized Web
applications

- Toolkits and framework for cloud-based Web application monitoring and
management

- Techniques for advanced information and data handling targeted at
virtualized storage

- Models to represent and link data in virtualized environments

Solving these key issues requires both first-class theoretical research and
careful experimental

evaluation to show that model predictions are faithful to observed
application behavior. Also,

results need to be validated in the context of hybrid provisioning on
multiple, heterogeneous

virtualized platforms and cloud stacks. Finally, Web-based information
systems rely on models

and tools for representing, integrating and linking data or resources from
heterogeneous sources

or platforms. There is a need to investigate the impact of virtualization on
these models.

Springer World Wide Web Journal solicits papers presenting original research
on Large-scale

Web applications in Virtualized Environments

The goal of this special issue is to bring together current development,
ideas, and practical

results of Web application development and deployment, as it is being
transformed by

virtualization. Manuscripts are solicited to address a wide range of topics
in Web information

management in the cloud era, including - but not limited to - to the
following topics:

- Web application development on virtualized infrastructures and platform

- Web information handling on virtualized storage

- Web applications on Cloud infrastructure

- Web applications and SLA

- Data and information quality on virtualized systems

- Deep Web and the Cloud

- Information integration on heterogeneous cloud systems

- Knowledge-based systems

- Virtualized RDF data indexing and storage

- Recommender systems on the cloud

- Virtualized Systems security, privacy, and trust

- Using Social Network Analysis on the cloud

- Data management and mining in social Web

- Filtering techniques (ranking, collaborative filtering, topic detection
and tracking, etc) for social Web

- Web advertising and community analysis

- Web-based collaboration

- Web service and information management

- Virtual communities on the cloud

- Design and analysis of social or collaborative applications

- Cloud and service computing

- Cloud and mobile services

 

** Important Dates

 

- Extended Paper submission: April 10, 2014

- First round notification: June 10, 2014

- Revised version due: September 10, 2014

- Notification of Acceptance: October 10, 2014

- Final Manuscripts Due: November 10, 2014

 

** Submission Instructions

Authors are encouraged to submit high-quality, original work that has
neither appeared in, nor is under

consideration by, other journals.

Springer offers authors, editors and reviewers of World Wide Web Journal a
web-enabled online

manuscript submission and review system. Our online system offers authors
the ability to track the review

process of their manuscript. Manuscripts should be submitted to:
http://WWWJ.edmgr.com under the

article type "Large-Scale Web Virtualized Environment." This online system
offers easy and

straightforward log-in and submission procedures, and supports a wide range
of submission file formats.

 

** Journal Information

Springer World Wide Web Journal

ISSN: 1386-145X (print) 1573-1413 (electronic)

www.Springer.com/11280 <http://www.Springer.com/11280>  

 

Editors-in-Chief:

- Marek Rusinkiewicz, Telcordia Technologies, USA

- Yanchun Zhang, Victoria University, Australia

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/825f10bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 28 12:10:15 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:10:15 -0700
Subject: [governance] The coming job apocalypse
Message-ID: <076401cf4aa0$355f1400$a01d3c00$@gmail.com>

While this article is highly focused on the situation in the US, these are among the issues which will very soon (or even now) need to be discussed in the context of Global (Internet) Governance. The question is, is MSism an appropriate method for responding to issues of social justice such as this.

 

M

 

 

 Harold Meyerson <http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Staff-Bio/Images/harold-meyerson-114x80.png> 

 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/harold-meyerson/2011/02/24/ABvsvmP_page.html> Harold Meyerson

Opinion Writer


The coming job apocalypse


*	By  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/harold-meyerson/2011/02/24/ABvsvmP_page.html> Harold Meyerson, Published: March 26  <mailto:meyersonh at washpost.com?subject=Reader%20feedback%20for%20%27The%20coming%20job%20apocalypse%20%27> E-mail the writer

As a general rule, more Americans work than do the citizens of other advanced economies. Since the late 1970s, when the number of women in the workforce ballooned, the share of Americans who either had jobs or were trying to get one was greater than the share of comparable Europeans. For reasons good and bad — the higher availability of jobs, the need to bolster stagnating incomes, the linkage of jobs to health insurance — Americans worked like the dickens.

But that general rule may be changing. The percentage of working-age adults in the U.S. labor force began to decline in 2000, when it reached a peak of 67 percent. As of last month, it was down to  <http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000> 63 percent, which is  <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4c2993c6-b342-11e3-b891-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2x5pFuXbK> lower than the level in the United Kingdom. Not since the late 1970s has Britain had a higher share of workforce participants than the United States.

 

 

Part of this decline is because of the retirement of aging boomers, but that explanation goes only so far. It doesn’t explain, for instance, why the workforce participation of Americans ages 25 to 34 has declined from 83.3 percent to 81.8 percent since 2007, as the Financial Times reported this week. Worse yet, the number of hours that working Americans are on the job is in decline, too. In the past six months, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the  <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433442474053878> average workweek has shrunk from 34.5 hours to 34.2 hours — even as the official unemployment rate has dropped.

Anti-Obama partisans blame the president and his policies for the dwindling workforce, but the decline began in the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency and continued through much of the presidency of George W. Bush. Clearly, either bipartisan public policy or something more fundamental than public policy is to blame.

 

 

The bipartisan public policy that should raise the most suspicion is trade policy, which fostered the offshoring of  <http://www.epi.org/publication/bp345-china-growing-trade-deficit-cost/> more than 2 million manufacturing jobs after Congress normalized trade relations with China in 2000. But an even more fundamental factor in the declining share of working Americans is the technological automation that has eliminated millions of jobs and is poised to eliminate millions more.

 

 

The mechanization of work has already taken a toll in the nation’s ports (where cranes have  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-averted-port-strike-holds-lessons-for-all-workers/2013/01/01/3befd548-5393-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html> reduced the longshore workforce to roughly 10 percent of its size 60 years ago), factories (where machines and computers have substituted for millions of workers), construction sites (where the prefabrication of parts has <http://prospect.org/article/work-history-0> reduced the number of construction workers ) and offices (whatever became of secretaries?). And with increasing computing capacity steadily expanding the abilities of machines, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

 

 

In a  <http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf> paper they wrote last year, Carl Benedikt Frey of Oxford University’s Program on the Impacts of Future Technology, and Michael A. Osborn, an Oxford engineering professor, broke down the U.S. economy into 702 distinct occupations and classified those occupations by the probability of their computerization over the next few decades. They concluded that 47 percent of U.S. workers have a high probability of seeing their jobs automated over the next 20 years, including in transportation (where the  <http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifeatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html> driverless car has become a reality), manufacturing and retail sales. They offer no particular policy suggestions to remedy this cataclysm, save that “high-skill and high-wage” jobs are the least likely to be swept away and that workers, accordingly, need “to acquire creative and social skills” that computers are unlikely to master until a more distant time.

 

 

Frey and Osborne acknowledge that there is a lot of speculation encoded in their equations. But even if they’re half right, or just a third right, that would mean that 23.5 percent or 15.7 percent, respectively, of U.S. workers face a future of employment extermination. I doubt that the mass acquisition of creative and social skills is sufficient to meet this challenge. The way to deal with such a job apocalypse would begin with the very measures that we have failed to enact to combat the cyclical downturn that began in 2008: a massive government program to build and repair our infrastructure and to provide the preschool education and elder care that the nation needs, which would increase consumption and economic activity generally.

 

 

Eventually, however, as computers pick up more and more skills, we will have to embrace the necessity of redistributing wealth and income from the shrinking number of Americans who have sizable incomes from their investments or their work to the growing number of Americans who want work but can’t find it. That may or may not be socialism; certainly, it’s survival.

 

__._,_.___


 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/messages/29282;_ylc=X3oDMTJyb2M4NmZxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMyOTI4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3Njc-?act=reply&messageNum=29282> Reply via web post 

 <mailto:eweick at rogers.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20%5BOttawadissenters%5D%20%28unknown%29> Reply to sender 

 <mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20%5BOttawadissenters%5D%20%28unknown%29> Reply to group 

 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaHFwNm1sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3Njc-> Start a New Topic 

 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/topics/29281;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZWhyaTUyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMyOTI4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3NjcEdHBjSWQDMjkyODE-> Messages in this topic (2) 

 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaGZxdjM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3Njc-> Visit Your Group 

 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb3Q1b3FoBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5NTkyOTc2Nw--> Yahoo! Groups

•  <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy •  <mailto:Ottawadissenters-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe •  <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of Use 

.

  <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15209059/grpspId=1705083512/msgId=29282/stime=1395929767> 

__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/4377bc6a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Fri Mar 28 12:22:44 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 21:52:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] The coming job apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <076401cf4aa0$355f1400$a01d3c00$@gmail.com>
References: <076401cf4aa0$355f1400$a01d3c00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5335A1D4.3050702@ITforChange.net>

thanks  MG

The article says - "They offer no particular policy suggestions to 
remedy this cataclysm, save that “high-skill and high-wage” jobs are the 
least likely to be swept away and that workers, accordingly, need “to 
acquire creative and social skills” that computers are unlikely to 
master until a more distant time".

However I am doubtful if the number of such high skilled or creative 
jobs will anywhere increase to offset the decrease in the other jobs... 
this is a serious issue

Of course automation was thought of at sometime also as a blessing - 
that we all can work lesser...but whether it will actually bring about 
that happy situation where we all get more time for 'leisure' pursuits 
or a situation where many are fighting for economic survival (while the 
rich get richer and richer) is something for society to decide...only by 
perhaps democratic processes...

Guru






On 03/28/2014 09:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> While this article is highly focused on the situation in the US, these 
> are among the issues which will very soon (or even now) need to be 
> discussed in the context of Global (Internet) Governance. The question 
> is, is MSism an appropriate method for responding to issues of social 
> justice such as this.
>
> *//*
>
> M
>
> Harold Meyerson
>
> Harold Meyerson 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/harold-meyerson/2011/02/24/ABvsvmP_page.html>
>
> Opinion Writer
>
>
>   The coming job apocalypse
>
>   * *By **Harold Meyerson
>     <http://www.washingtonpost.com/harold-meyerson/2011/02/24/ABvsvmP_page.html>**,
>     **Published: March 26****E-mail the writer*
>     <mailto:meyersonh at washpost.com?subject=Reader%20feedback%20for%20%27The%20coming%20job%20apocalypse%20%27>
>
> As a general rule, more Americans work than do the citizens of other 
> advanced economies. Since the late 1970s, when the number of women in 
> the workforce ballooned, the share of Americans who either had jobs or 
> were trying to get one was greater than the share of comparable 
> Europeans. For reasons good and bad — the higher availability of jobs, 
> the need to bolster stagnating incomes, the linkage of jobs to health 
> insurance — Americans worked like the dickens.
>
> But that general rule may be changing. The percentage of working-age 
> adults in the U.S. labor force began to decline in 2000, when it 
> reached a peak of 67 percent. As of last month, it was down to 63 
> percent <http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000>, which is lower 
> than the level in the United Kingdom 
> <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4c2993c6-b342-11e3-b891-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2x5pFuXbK>. 
> Not since the late 1970s has Britain had a higher share of workforce 
> participants than the United States.
>
> Part of this decline is because of the retirement of aging boomers, 
> but that explanation goes only so far. It doesn’t explain, for 
> instance, why the workforce participation of Americans ages 25 to 34 
> has declined from 83.3 percent to 81.8 percent since 2007, as the 
> Financial Times reported this week. Worse yet, the number of hours 
> that working Americans are on the job is in decline, too. In the past 
> six months, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average 
> workweek has shrunk 
> <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433442474053878> from 
> 34.5 hours to 34.2 hours —even as the official unemployment rate has 
> dropped.
>
> Anti-Obama partisans blame the president and his policies for the 
> dwindling workforce, but the decline began in the last year of Bill 
> Clinton’s presidency and continued through much of the presidency of 
> George W. Bush. Clearly, either bipartisan public policy or something 
> more fundamental than public policy is to blame.
>
> The bipartisan public policy that should raise the most suspicion is 
> trade policy, which fostered the offshoring of more than 2 million 
> manufacturing jobs 
> <http://www.epi.org/publication/bp345-china-growing-trade-deficit-cost/> after 
> Congress normalized trade relations with China in 2000. But an even 
> more fundamental factor in the declining share of working Americans is 
> the technological automation that has eliminated millions of jobs and 
> is poised to eliminate millions more.
>
> The mechanization of work has already taken a toll in the nation’s 
> ports (where cranes have reduced the longshore workforce 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-averted-port-strike-holds-lessons-for-all-workers/2013/01/01/3befd548-5393-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html> to 
> roughly 10 percent of its size 60 years ago), factories (where 
> machines and computers have substituted for millions of workers), 
> construction sites (where the prefabrication of parts hasreduced the 
> number of construction workers 
> <http://prospect.org/article/work-history-0> ) and offices (whatever 
> became of secretaries?). And with increasing computing capacity 
> steadily expanding the abilities of machines, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
>
> In a paper 
> <http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf> they 
> wrote last year, Carl Benedikt Frey of Oxford University’s Program on 
> the Impacts of Future Technology, and Michael A. Osborn, an Oxford 
> engineering professor, broke down the U.S. economy into 702 distinct 
> occupations and classified those occupations by the probability of 
> their computerization over the next few decades. They concluded that 
> 47 percent of U.S. workers have a high probability of seeing their 
> jobs automated over the next 20 years, including in transportation 
> (where the driverless car has become a reality 
> <http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifeatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html>), 
> manufacturing and retail sales. They offer no particular policy 
> suggestions to remedy this cataclysm, save that “high-skill and 
> high-wage” jobs are the least likely to be swept away and that 
> workers, accordingly, need “to acquire creative and social skills” 
> that computers are unlikely to master until a more distant time.
>
> Frey and Osborne acknowledge that there is a lot of speculation 
> encoded in their equations. But even if they’re half right, or just a 
> third right, that would mean that 23.5 percent or 15.7 percent, 
> respectively, of U.S. workers face a future of employment 
> extermination. I doubt that the mass acquisition of creative and 
> social skills is sufficient to meet this challenge. The way to deal 
> with such a job apocalypse would begin with the very measures that we 
> have failed to enact to combat the cyclical downturn that began in 
> 2008: a massive government program to build and repair our 
> infrastructure and to provide the preschool education and elder care 
> that the nation needs, which would increase consumption and economic 
> activity generally.
>
> Eventually, however, as computers pick up more and more skills, we 
> will have to embrace the necessity of redistributing wealth and income 
> from the shrinking number of Americans who have sizable incomes from 
> their investments or their work to the growing number of Americans who 
> want work but can’t find it. That may or may not be socialism; 
> certainly, it’s survival.
>
> __._,_.___
>
> *Reply via web post 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/messages/29282;_ylc=X3oDMTJyb2M4NmZxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMyOTI4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3Njc-?act=reply&messageNum=29282> 
> *
>
> 	
>
> Reply to sender 
> <mailto:eweick at rogers.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20%5BOttawadissenters%5D%20%28unknown%29>
>
> 	
>
> Reply to group 
> <mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20%5BOttawadissenters%5D%20%28unknown%29>
>
> 	
>
> Start a New Topic 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaHFwNm1sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3Njc-> 
>
>
> 	
>
> Messages in this topic 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/conversations/topics/29281;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZWhyaTUyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMyOTI4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3NjcEdHBjSWQDMjkyODE-> 
> (2)
>
> *Visit Your Group 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ottawadissenters/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaGZxdjM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTU5Mjk3Njc->*
>
> Yahoo! Groups 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb3Q1b3FoBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5NTkyOTc2Nw-->
>
> • Privacy 
> <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • 
> Unsubscribe 
> <mailto:Ottawadissenters-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 
> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/b82d989d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 28 12:36:13 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:36:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [discuss] What is MSism?
References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net>	<7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org>	<20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net>	<170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org>	<5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxi7BYdgEJjzmb4f0r1GNyBWCPEODjfxVZfN2SgVHZnUvw@mail.gmail.com>	<01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxiygFCQJJYp1V37ReHEx5ZSEw0wh5Gm_sXnRStE58bYcw@mail.gmail.com> <533576E9.4000704@wzb.eu> 
Message-ID: <07a401cf4aa3$d63adbe0$82b093a0$@gmail.com>

Yes, to Jeanette's comments below... and to add, what also seems new is

            *the intent to formalize MSism as a method of formal decision
making in areas very much outside the narrowly technical

            *the intent to substitute this for other methods of formal
decision making

            *the presentation of MSism as an update on other forms of
decision making for example as "enhanced democracy" or "post-democratic"

            *the identification of MSism as a specific response to a wide
range of problems with current democratic processes rather than one
tool/method among many for enhancing consultative processes

            *the attempt to implement this method across the board in a
specific sphere, Internet Governance, but with strong implications of it
being applicable in much much wider spheres

            *the launching of a widely based seemingly coordinated campaign
in support of the above

 

In short, as Jeanette points out, the MS model of broadening the base and
methodology of consultation is a very old one, turning it into an "ism" and
a movement is something very new.

 

Issues of direct democracy are I think tangential to discussions of MSism
and certainly are not relevant to my broader arguments.

 

The simple opposition between the MS model and representative democracy is a
strawman argument. As I've said repeatedly MS processes have their place and
representative democracy has its problems particularly with somewhat complex
(technical etc.) and fast moving issue areas.

 

However, the attempt to stampede the world towards a radical broad scale
substitution of MSism for current democratic practice would appear to have
motives much beyond an improvement in the management of the IANA function,
for example, or responding to flaws in current democratic processes-motives
perhaps (as per the two papers I pointed to) of finding a way to formally
include global Internet corporations in global Internet decision making. 

 

If responding to flaws in existing practice were the only concern then the
appropriate approach would be to address the flaws rather than a complete
substitution as is evidently being promoted at least by some.

 

...something is happening here

But you don't know what it is

Do you, Mister Jones?

 

http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/ballad-thin-man

 

M

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 6:20 AM
To: McTim
Cc: 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] What is MSism?

 

 

Hi McTim,

 

Am 28.03.2014 13:07, schrieb McTim:

> <cc list trimmed as per good netiquette>

 

> Your insistence that MSism is a new pheonomenon in IG ignores the 

> history of the past 40 years.

 

I'd say it is a new term for a phenomenon much older than the past 40 years.
Parliamentary hearings, for example, often follow the multistakeholder
approach. So does the German parliamentary inquiry commission. What seems
more recent is the idea to adapt this model to transnational regulation.

> 

> It is clear that many of us (most of us I am guessing) on 1Net prefer 

> direct democracy:

 

Is it? I certainly wouldn't. I think it is impossible for a modern complex
society to govern itself solely through direct forms of democracy. It is not
even clear whether direct democracy would be more democratic given the
little interest large parts of society have in matters of collective
concern.

 

Global issues such as the management of the IANA functions will probably
never attract attention beyond a small minority. Concepts such as
representative versus direct democracy might be simply too big for the small
community dealing with this issue. Still, the future process and the
institutional architecture have to be transparent, reliable, accountable and
thus legitimate.

 

jeanette

 

> 

>  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

> 

> Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of 

> democracyin which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on,

> etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to arepresentative 

> democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide 

> policy initiatives.[2]

> 

> 

> Given that 1Net is all about MSism:

> 

> "As part of the multistakeholder approach, /1net is hosting an open, 

> global onlineforum about Internet governance. Together, we can develop 

> a framework that will help grow and strengthen our interconnected 

> world in the public interest. "

> 

> source: 1net.org

> 

> I doubt that this is really open to debate on this list.

> 

> Given my experience in MS processes (including WSIS) over the last

> decade+ it is clear to me that the MS model is one that works far

> better in protecting an open Internet than representative democracy.

> Those MS processes aren't about power, but largely about which ideas 

> are better than others (WSIS was an exception to this rule).

> 

> YMMV.

> 

 

_______________________________________________

discuss mailing list

 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

 <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/27ae0de0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 28 14:11:03 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:11:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Geneva IG Briefing Webinar 1 April
In-Reply-To: <CAHXEJG1KsJgiKW3N68o=u3QXZdOU_+UukMaDPLrcqmorXOK0-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHXEJG1KsJgiKW3N68o=u3QXZdOU_+UukMaDPLrcqmorXOK0-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6HokJ=J9w=vFZcuENgNvMSQh6S5s8q60HUR-c2dy9zVw@mail.gmail.com>

Another webinar from Diplo which may be of interest.
Deirdre

 The *Geneva Briefing on Internet Governance* takes place on the first
Tuesday of every month. If you would like to get a regular 'zoomed-out'
update of the major global IG and digital politics developments, join us
online for the webinar briefing from Geneva within the Geneva Internet
Platform <http://www.diplomacy.edu/capacity/GIP>(GIP) project on Tuesday, 1
April 2014 at 13.00 CET.




*You receive hundreds of pieces of information on digital politics.We
receive them, too.We decode, contextualise, and analyse them.Then we
summarise them for you.*

Join us once a month for a round-up of the main IG-related
events<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/events> and
developments. Every month, we look back at what happened and look ahead to
what's to come.

Our previous webinar<http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-geneva-briefing-internet-governance-march-2014>
provided
an overview of February's developments and an insight into expectations for
March.

The next webinar will take place on *Tuesday, 1st April 2014, at 13.00 CET*.

*Please register here
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/registrations/webinar-geneva-briefing-internet-governance-april-2014>*
.

We will reflect on March's IG developments:

   - The USA possibly relinquishing the control of the Internet. What does
   the NTIA Announcement<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
of
   the Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions mean?
   - India's call<http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-06/news/47971199_1_internet-governance-forum-india-global-agency>
for
   the establishment of a global agency to manage the Internet.
   - ICANN's Panel on Global Internet Cooperation & Governance
Mechanisms submitted
   a contribution to
NETmundial<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-11mar14-en.htm>,
   following its meeting in the USA.
   - The success of Brazil's Marco
Civil<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0MN00H20140326?irpc=932>
-
   Internet Civil Rights Law regarding Internet access and rights.
   - Updates from ICANN's regular meeting in Singapore, 23-27
March<http://singapore49.icann.org/en/>
   .
   - Other relevant emerging threads, such as BitCoin dilemmas around the
   world.
   - News from the GIP: Panel on cyber surveillance 'Yes We
Scan'<http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/%E2%80%98yes-we-scan%E2%80%99-internet-politics-placebos-antibiotics-and-homeopathy>
at
   the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights, and the
   online course in IG for diplomats.

We will look ahead to April:

   - NETmundial <http://netmundial.br/> meeting in São Paolo, 23-24 April.
   - /1net <http://1net.org/> developments towards NETmundial.
   - ITU WTDC-14<http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/WTDC/WTDC14/Pages/default.aspx>
in
   Dubai from 30 March to 10 April 2014.
   - The GIP: formal launch of the Platform on 8 April in Geneva, including
   an exhibition -*Internet Landscape *- that maps key Geneva and global IG
   institutions, and a presentation of the draft negotiation proposal for
   NETmundial based on the data-mining analysis of all the contributions
   received.

The webinar will be hosted by Vladimir
Radunovic<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/radunovic>
. Dr Jovan Kurbalija <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/kurbalija>
 and Marilia Maciel <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/maciel> will
join as guest speakers.

To stay informed about the Geneva Briefings on IG, subscribe to our Webinars
mailing list <http://www.diplomacy.edu/registrations/webinars-list>

-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140328/a7ef13d2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From karl at cavebear.com  Fri Mar 28 19:01:51 2014
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:01:51 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [discuss] What is MSism?
In-Reply-To: <07a401cf4aa3$d63adbe0$82b093a0$@gmail.com>
References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net>	<7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org>	<20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net>	<170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org>	<5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>	<0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxi7BYdgEJjzmb4f0r1GNyBWCPEODjfxVZfN2SgVHZnUvw@mail.gmail.com>	<01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxiygFCQJJYp1V37ReHEx5ZSEw0wh5Gm_sXnRStE58bYcw@mail.gmail.com> <533576E9.4000704@wzb.eu> <07a401cf4aa3$d63adbe0$82b093a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5335FF5F.3030602@cavebear.com>


It looks to me as if some of us are using similar words but intending
different meanings.  (That kind of ambiguity often is the cause of
perceived differences where no real difference of opinion exists.)

It seems OK to me to endow "stakeholder" labels when we are asking those
"stakeholders" for information or clarification.  Jeannette H. uses
"multistakholder" in that sort of context.

But on the other hand, "stakeholder" (multi or otherwise) is also being
used in the context of the allocation of the power to make a decision on
a matter.  (It is this use to which I have strong objection.)

To make things more concrete, based on an example that is getting
increasingly warm here in California: Hydro Fracking for natural gas and
petroleum.

It makes sense for our elected representatives (and other bodies) that
are trying to gather information to call upon oil companies for
information.  In that sense labeling those oil companies as
"stakeholders" seems OK, albeit it would be better to simply indicate
that they are parties that have direct relevant experience that is
worthy of being heard and considered as evidence - but not as
determinative of the outcome.

However, it would be odd indeed if we were to give those oil companies
voting seats in the legislature merely by virtue of the fact that they
are oil companies that want to engage in fracking,  Yet that is largely
what we are doing with "multistakeholder" thought here in the lands of
internet governance.

Regarding Jeannette H's note about direct democracy - I agree that such
is hard, although it is certainly less hard now then it was before
massive electronic communications.  (I say that in terms of an informed
electorate as opposed to the rather complicated question of actual
casting and counting of votes.)

But I look on the question of direct vs representative systems as
orthogonal to the granting of votes in either system based on whether
some god-like overseer says that person X or corporation Y or trade
group Z is worth as a "stakeholder".

And finally, regarding things that affect many but are observed by few,
such as the IANA "protocol parameter" function.  That is an example of a
function that is largely non-contentious and clerical.  Those kinds of
functions can be handled by the establishment of procedural rules that
must be followed, an oversight body to audit whether those procedures
are, in fact, being followed, and acts of that function handled via a
notice and comment system.

Such low-discretion, non-contentious, clerical jobs ought to be clearly
and completely separated from governance jobs that contain discretion or
are contentious.  For example, we have seen how ICANN often does a Sally
Rand Fan Dance to distract eyes from its naughty bits by waving around a
big IANA function fan.

	--karl--

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Mar 28 21:17:22 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:17:22 +1200
Subject: [governance] DNS [Property or Public Good]
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBLsR+=qzQmS0pc7dAg1uwZQ5AOchUxXeM_uiYVDGSWKA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

There was an interesting article that was recently published by Romano that
to me begged the question:


   1. Is the DNS property or public good?
   2. If it is property who owns it or who can claim ownership? What are
   the legal, proprietary and equitable rights to it?
   3. If it is a public good - is it a US public good or global public good?

Whilst we have had the debate over some of these issues several years ago,
the nature of the conflict and the views coming through go back to the
fundamental core question.


The link to the article is
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2014/140326/guested-romano.html


Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/9b456c63/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From karl at cavebear.com  Fri Mar 28 21:26:43 2014
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:26:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] DNS [Property or Public Good]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBLsR+=qzQmS0pc7dAg1uwZQ5AOchUxXeM_uiYVDGSWKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBLsR+=qzQmS0pc7dAg1uwZQ5AOchUxXeM_uiYVDGSWKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53362153.7040806@cavebear.com>

On 03/28/2014 06:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

>  1. Is the DNS property or public good?

The word "property" is very heavily overloaded by cultural and legal
context.

I find it much better to avoid that word altogether and rather to
consider the collection of rights and obligations that person X has to
thing Y.

For example, with regard to domain names X could be the registrant and
X's rights include the right to delegate name servers, to sub-delegate,
etc.  While the obligations might include paying fees, providing contact
information, etc etc.

Same for registrars - they have certain rights and obligations with
regard to that same domain name (from the prior paragraph above) such
acting as the intermediary to a registry, etc etc.

Some people may consider those contractual things.  But to me that is
merely a difference in words without real difference in substance.

I suggest, therefore, that in discussing these sorts of things that we
can avoid a lot of miscommmunication by avoiding the difficult word
"property".

	--karl--


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Mar 29 06:13:51 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:13:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] DNS [Property or Public Good]
In-Reply-To: <53362153.7040806@cavebear.com>
References: <CAJwbTiBLsR+=qzQmS0pc7dAg1uwZQ5AOchUxXeM_uiYVDGSWKA@mail.gmail.com> <53362153.7040806@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <53369CDF.9090405@wzb.eu>

Hi Karl,

+1

The term property suggests a totality and uniformity of ownership that 
in practice often turns out to be wrong. Ownership is always subject to 
conditions and those may vary across and time and political/juridical 
cultures. This also means that exclusive rights and obligations are not 
fixed forever but are negotiable.

jeanette

Am 29.03.14 02:26, schrieb Karl Auerbach:
> On 03/28/2014 06:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>>   1. Is the DNS property or public good?
>
> The word "property" is very heavily overloaded by cultural and legal
> context.
>
> I find it much better to avoid that word altogether and rather to
> consider the collection of rights and obligations that person X has to
> thing Y.
>
> For example, with regard to domain names X could be the registrant and
> X's rights include the right to delegate name servers, to sub-delegate,
> etc.  While the obligations might include paying fees, providing contact
> information, etc etc.
>
> Same for registrars - they have certain rights and obligations with
> regard to that same domain name (from the prior paragraph above) such
> acting as the intermediary to a registry, etc etc.
>
> Some people may consider those contractual things.  But to me that is
> merely a difference in words without real difference in substance.
>
> I suggest, therefore, that in discussing these sorts of things that we
> can avoid a lot of miscommmunication by avoiding the difficult word
> "property".
>
> 	--karl--
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Sat Mar 29 06:28:33 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:28:33 +0900
Subject: [governance] [BBC] Turkey moves to block YouTube access after
 'audio leak'
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear CS friends,

It's quite uncomfortable to know the recent development of censorship on
social media by Turkish Government.
Now YouTube after twitter.

Here's one piece.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26773702

What's next?

Shouldn't CS people raise our voice to the host country of IGF2014 as soon
as possible?

NETMundial is important, but this is also very significant to us.

izumi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/b7d1fb84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Mar 29 06:59:34 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:59:34 -0300
Subject: [governance] Hubs to Net Mundial - call for registration still open
Message-ID: <CACpVkK06GjaCU6cGPW+vmnfsJAG4R5V8G7Ldkti4OZYCwieFBg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

This is a reminder of the opportunity to register a remote participation
Hub to Net Mundial, given that the deadline has been extended. Remote hubs
will have the opportunity to follow the webcast of the meeting and send
comments, questions an suggestions to Net Mundial. All registered hubs will
receive support from the organization of the event.

The call containing further information can be found here:

http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/03/18/netmundial-opens-opportunity-for-interested-to-host-official-hubs-of-participation/

Best,
Marília

*What are the hubs?*
The hubs are local meetings that take place simultaneously with NETmundial
meeting. People can watch the webcast together and send questions and
comments, via text or audio, that will be included in the Sao Paulo
discussions.

NETmundial remote hubs can be organized among participants and any group of
interested people who share a more immediate community or geographical
proximity. It should be open and inclusive to interest actors among the
local community, as well as the local press. An minimal infrastructure
should be provided, such as:

- Accessible location, open to the general public (hotel meeting room,
auditorium, theater etc);
- Accommodate around 50 participants;
- Computer and Internet broadband connection availability;
- Computer screen projection and audio system (microphone and speakers);

 *About NETmundial*

*The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance* will
focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap
for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.  The
meeting is scheduled for April 23rd and 24th 2014, in Sao Paulo, Brazil,
and will be live webcast enabling remote participation.  The meeting
follows an initiative proposed by CGI.br and /1net. More info:
www.netmundial.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/ba548438/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar 29 07:34:07 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:04:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] [BBC] Turkey moves to block YouTube access after
 'audio leak'
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3247D0A5-94C8-42E6-85BD-A90A28613473@hserus.net>

Social media is key to make IGF interactive.  If it gets banned and treated with contempt, there is absolutely no way to distinguish the conference from say a traditional closed door ITU meeting in Geneva.  I agree, IGF should not be held in Turkey, at least till the current regime changes its policies and/or is removed from power.

--srs (iPad)

> On 29-Mar-2014, at 15:58, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear CS friends,
> 
> It's quite uncomfortable to know the recent development of censorship on social media by Turkish Government. 
> Now YouTube after twitter. 
> 
> Here's one piece.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26773702
> 
> What's next?
> 
> Shouldn't CS people raise our voice to the host country of IGF2014 as soon as possible?
> 
> NETMundial is important, but this is also very significant to us.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/04de73a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Sat Mar 29 08:58:59 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:58:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] [BBC] Turkey moves to block YouTube access after
 'audio leak'
In-Reply-To: <3247D0A5-94C8-42E6-85BD-A90A28613473@hserus.net>
References: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3247D0A5-94C8-42E6-85BD-A90A28613473@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKgRSa5_dVApsf=6p+4r6vNpsdZRZ_ckQ44OCkKP_=zgTA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Suresh, and I just learned from local friend there that there
will be local election tomorrow, Sunday, and the outcome might affect the
next course of actions of the current administration, who is suffering from
serious information leakage from the top level of the government, including
possible war plan.

Let's see.

izumi


2014-03-29 20:34 GMT+09:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:

> Social media is key to make IGF interactive.  If it gets banned and
> treated with contempt, there is absolutely no way to distinguish the
> conference from say a traditional closed door ITU meeting in Geneva.  I
> agree, IGF should not be held in Turkey, at least till the current regime
> changes its policies and/or is removed from power.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 29-Mar-2014, at 15:58, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
> Dear CS friends,
>
> It's quite uncomfortable to know the recent development of censorship on
> social media by Turkish Government.
> Now YouTube after twitter.
>
> Here's one piece.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26773702
>
> What's next?
>
> Shouldn't CS people raise our voice to the host country of IGF2014 as soon
> as possible?
>
> NETMundial is important, but this is also very significant to us.
>
> izumi
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/ffe7bc7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar 29 09:07:22 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:37:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] [BBC] Turkey moves to block YouTube access after
 'audio leak'
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKgRSa5_dVApsf=6p+4r6vNpsdZRZ_ckQ44OCkKP_=zgTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com> <3247D0A5-94C8-42E6-85BD-A90A28613473@hserus.net> <CA+YNoKgRSa5_dVApsf=6p+4r6vNpsdZRZ_ckQ44OCkKP_=zgTA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C9B4D327-5248-4DCF-86F1-92244F2901D6@hserus.net>

Much like Thaksin Shinwatra in Thailand, Erdogan's main support base is the rural poor, not very many of whom, at least in Turkey, use social media of any sort, and his bet is that they will continue to appreciate hardline nationalist rhetoric and populist handouts.

So whether or not there are protests on social media and in the cities, where people don't care much for him anyway, is not going to make too much of a difference is what I feel.

--srs (iPad)

> On 29-Mar-2014, at 18:28, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Suresh, and I just learned from local friend there that there will be local election tomorrow, Sunday, and the outcome might affect the next course of actions of the current administration, who is suffering from serious information leakage from the top level of the government, including possible war plan.
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 2014-03-29 20:34 GMT+09:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:
>> Social media is key to make IGF interactive.  If it gets banned and treated with contempt, there is absolutely no way to distinguish the conference from say a traditional closed door ITU meeting in Geneva.  I agree, IGF should not be held in Turkey, at least till the current regime changes its policies and/or is removed from power.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 29-Mar-2014, at 15:58, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear CS friends,
>>> 
>>> It's quite uncomfortable to know the recent development of censorship on social media by Turkish Government. 
>>> Now YouTube after twitter. 
>>> 
>>> Here's one piece.
>>> 
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26773702
>>> 
>>> What's next?
>>> 
>>> Shouldn't CS people raise our voice to the host country of IGF2014 as soon as possible?
>>> 
>>> NETMundial is important, but this is also very significant to us.
>>> 
>>> izumi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,          
> Japan
> www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/9c8b5715/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org  Sat Mar 29 10:25:34 2014
From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:25:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] [BBC] Turkey moves to block YouTube access after
 'audio leak'
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKj6sA8gQP6nDQ4-KOqVBhe52dR2303ECipxi6Wgrc+BSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+hSVSq9EKm6ozrVvZSM=gZDzLLb57U-2Hg+XpBMvag3sCbByg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

GNI issued a statement Thursday on topic referencing Turkey as the IGF
 host:

https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/turkey-stop-blocking-social-media

In addition, Access had an excellent blog post making this point last week,
also noting turkey's role on the netmundial high level stakeholder
committee:

https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/03/21/escalation-in-erdogans-war-on-online-freedom-of-expression



On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear CS friends,
>
> It's quite uncomfortable to know the recent development of censorship on
> social media by Turkish Government.
> Now YouTube after twitter.
>
> Here's one piece.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26773702
>
> What's next?
>
> Shouldn't CS people raise our voice to the host country of IGF2014 as soon
> as possible?
>
> NETMundial is important, but this is also very significant to us.
>
> izumi
>
>
>

-- 
David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
Office: +1 202 741 5048
Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140329/12d7fdc3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Mar 30 02:03:03 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 02:03:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net> <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca> <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <30EBDB37-8892-48D7-A28B-5C5F4F9DDFB5@mail.utoronto.ca>

Hi Parminder, I am sorry I did not respond earlier, this message got lost in the tsunami.  I understand and share many of your questions, and have but one question:  are you familiar with the ITU?
Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
One question:
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Hi Stephanie
> 
> Just to clarify three points...
> On Friday 14 March 2014 09:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs.    I am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no question it could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the Internet and the modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is exactly the kind of envigoration it needs.
> 
> I have no doubt that the new communicative paradigm centred on the Internet will fundamentally transform the practice (not the principles) of democracy. In fact, we know that there are movements ranging from European cities, to Philippines, to India to the US to streets of Brazil that represent a strong disenchantment with the manner political parties system operates today... And many alternative forms and practices are taking shape... But none of these resembles what we know as multistakeholderism in the IG space... Does this say something? In fact, all new democracy forms, no doubt incipient and experimental yet, are very wary of power of big business and voice strong opposition to it, much less like IG's MSism hug it fondly and offer it special political legitimacy... I challenge the IG MS-ist to bring one grassroots participatory democratic movement to endorse its pro big business formulae. And I am serious. please do take me on this challenge. So, lets not employ the global dissatisfaction with performance of governance institutions today towards remedies that are worse than the illness. Yes democracy needs spine-stiffening, and perhaps more, but that would take place in the heat and dust of the streets where popular movements build, not in the MSists ivory towers. 
> 
>>  This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder model has appeal for many of us.  I will read your materials and respond more thoughtfully,
> 
> Look forward, thanks, 
>> but I would point out one thing...managing a global entity in a multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away from the nation state.
> 
> Must also make it clear that I am no special fan of nation states... I understand it to be a particular political formulation that arise in the post feudal industrial age scene... And with the information/Internet age its legitimacy as well as boundaries are strained... Nothing wrong with it. However, tenets of democracy and political equality of all people is sacrosanct, And MSism militates against them,
> 
> 
>>  The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious freedom, privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is already a challenge.  Some states are doing this more effectively than others....I would point to the EU, who have in some respects higher agricultural standards, more uniform data protection, and harmonized e-commerce regulations than we do in North America, in my humble opinion.  (this may start a storm of controversy on the list, please resist the temptation, I am just trying to point out efforts to continue to assert the power to regulate, not really trying to say the EU is better.)  The point about the Internet, is it is a key enabler in helping us get to whatever stage of global cooperation and human development we are capable, as deeply flawed humans, of achieving.
> 
> Yes, precisely becuase the Internet is so important, it needs to be regulated well, like other areas that you point out... And I believe that finally, democratic regulation is the best one. Mostly, where democracies begin to fail, regulations becomes worse, and I may dare suggest that this could be a problem with North America vis a vis EU... So, lets seek global democracy for best global regulation. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
>> More later.
>> Stephanie
>> On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Stephanie,
>>> I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More on agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental 'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which cannot easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is most important. Last year, I wrote a blog where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...
>>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.
>>> Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed in this fashion not a threat to democracy?
>>> Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines'.
>>> I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.
>>> Regards
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal gover!
>>>>  nment regu
>>>> !
>>>>  lation mak
>>>> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
>>>>   stands to
>>>>  be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
>>>> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying, 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>>>> 
>>>>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>>>>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>>>>> So who's able?
>>>>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>>>> 
>>>>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>>>> 
>>>>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>> 
>>>>> All of this is really going insane.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michael is so right
>>>>> 
>>>>> JC
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>>>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>>>    internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
>>>>>>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140330/b7dd813c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 30 02:31:41 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:01:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <30EBDB37-8892-48D7-A28B-5C5F4F9DDFB5@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
 <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
 <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
 <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
 <53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
 <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
 <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
 <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
 <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com>
 <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu>
 <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>
 <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
 <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net>
 <30EBDB37-8892-48D7-A28B-5C5F4F9DDFB5@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <14511af99a0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

(applause)


On 30 March 2014 11:34:02 am Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Hi Parminder, I am sorry I did not respond earlier, this message got lost 
> in the tsunami.  I understand and share many of your questions, and have 
> but one question:  are you familiar with the ITU?
> Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
> One question:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephanie
> > Just to clarify three points...
> > On Friday 14 March 2014 09:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >> Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult 
> question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs.    I 
> am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no question it 
> could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the Internet and the 
> modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is exactly the kind of 
> envigoration it needs.
> > I have no doubt that the new communicative paradigm centred on the 
> Internet will fundamentally transform the practice (not the principles) of 
> democracy. In fact, we know that there are movements ranging from European 
> cities, to Philippines, to India to the US to streets of Brazil that 
> represent a strong disenchantment with the manner political parties system 
> operates today... And many alternative forms and practices are taking 
> shape... But none of these resembles what we know as multistakeholderism in 
> the IG space... Does this say something? In fact, all new democracy forms, 
> no doubt incipient and experimental yet, are very wary of power of big 
> business and voice strong opposition to it, much less like IG's MSism hug 
> it fondly and offer it special political legitimacy... I challenge the IG 
> MS-ist to bring one grassroots participatory democratic movement to endorse 
> its pro big business formulae. And I am serious. please do take me on this 
> challenge. So, lets not employ the global dissatisfaction with performance 
> of governance institutions today towards remedies that are worse than the 
> illness. Yes democracy needs spine-stiffening, and perhaps more, but that 
> would take place in the heat and dust of the streets where popular 
> movements build, not in the MSists ivory towers.
> >>  This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder 
> model has appeal for many of us.  I will read your materials and respond 
> more thoughtfully,
> > Look forward, thanks, >> but I would point out one thing...managing a 
> global entity in a multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away 
> from the nation state.
> > Must also make it clear that I am no special fan of nation states... I 
> understand it to be a particular political formulation that arise in the 
> post feudal industrial age scene... And with the information/Internet age 
> its legitimacy as well as boundaries are strained... Nothing wrong with it. 
> However, tenets of democracy and political equality of all people is 
> sacrosanct, And MSism militates against them,
> >
> >>  The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, 
> free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, 
> employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious freedom, 
> privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is already a 
> challenge.  Some states are doing this more effectively than others....I 
> would point to the EU, who have in some respects higher agricultural 
> standards, more uniform data protection, and harmonized e-commerce 
> regulations than we do in North America, in my humble opinion.  (this may 
> start a storm of controversy on the list, please resist the temptation, I 
> am just trying to point out efforts to continue to assert the power to 
> regulate, not really trying to say the EU is better.)  The point about the 
> Internet, is it is a key enabler in helping us get to whatever stage of 
> global cooperation and human development we are capable, as deeply flawed 
> humans, of achieving.
> > Yes, precisely becuase the Internet is so important, it needs to be 
> regulated well, like other areas that you point out... And I believe that 
> finally, democratic regulation is the best one. Mostly, where democracies 
> begin to fail, regulations becomes worse, and I may dare suggest that this 
> could be a problem with North America vis a vis EU... So, lets seek global 
> democracy for best global regulation.
> > parminder
> > >> More later.
> >> Stephanie
> >> On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:
> >> >>> Dear Stephanie,
> >>> I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in 
> policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken that 
> we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More on 
> agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism later.) In 
> fact, your points on the need for non governmental 'stakeholders' to have 
> new formal venues of participation which cannot easily be influenced or 
> controlled by policy makers is most important. Last year, I wrote a blog 
> where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
> democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that are 
> not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...
> >>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for 
> instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several others.)They 
> specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for instance, equal 
> role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 'making actual public 
> policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on your formulations, may I 
> ask you whether you agree to such equality of all stakeholders – in terms, 
> sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual 
> public policy decisions'.
> >>> Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
> strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed in 
> this fashion not a threat to democracy?
> >>> Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is 
> certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to 
> save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines'.
> >>> I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the 
> High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all 
> stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations 
> begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.
> >>> Regards
> >>> parminder
> >>> On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 
> years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully 
> understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in 
> government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  
> Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) 
> agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, 
> shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to 
> understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public 
> servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact 
> assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, 
> hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here 
> is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, 
> bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In 
> multilateral or normal gover!
> >>>>  nment regu
> >>>> !
> >>>>  lation mak
> >>>> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from 
> fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some 
> countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry 
> associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights 
> advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes 
> hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My 
> point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or 
> rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is 
> more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, 
> money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the 
> process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair 
> and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a 
> stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very 
> clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
> >>>>   stands to
> >>>>  be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil 
> society would see fit to support it and make it better.
> >>>> Stephanie Perrin
> >>>> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there 
> are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with 
> positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than 
> argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment 
> on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help 
> mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
> >>>> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global 
> Journal wrote:
> >>>> >>>>> Jeanette,
> >>>>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
> >>>>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation 
> without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to 
> conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not 
> able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or 
> is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some 
> reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that 
> understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them 
> outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
> >>>>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity 
> to counterbalance big corps...
> >>>>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder 
> prism?
> >>>>> No civil servants, no civil society...
> >>>>> So who's able?
> >>>>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
> >>>>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why 
> do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
> >>>>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a 
> multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
> >>>>> Jeanette,
> >>>>> All of this is really going insane.
> >>>>> Michael is so right
> >>>>> JC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
> >>>>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare 
> legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to 
> think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without 
> external influence.
> >>>>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been 
> around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially 
> accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials 
> often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they 
> regulate.
> >>>>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity 
> to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of 
> commercial lobbying.
> >>>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
> >>>>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been 
> ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting 
> (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, 
> not only legal but compulsory?
> >>>>>>> M
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> >>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
> >>>>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
> >>>>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
> >>>>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
> >>>>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
> >>>>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing 
> this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not 
> done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly 
> on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder 
> offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process 
> in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in 
> secret.
> >>>>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 
> 'difference'?
> >>>>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
> >>>>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
> >>>>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
> >>>>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the 
> national level?
> >>>>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
> >>>>>>>> embracing here.
> >>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and 
> technical
> >>>>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
> >>>>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
> >>>>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
> >>>>>>>>> public administration.
> >>>>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
> >>>>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
> >>>>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
> >>>>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
> >>>>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
> >>>>>>>>> representatives .
> >>>>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
> >>>>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
> >>>>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
> >>>>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
> >>>>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
> >>>>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
> >>>>>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
> >>>>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
> >>>>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
> >>>>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
> >>>>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
> >>>>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
> >>>>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
> >>>>>>>>> what is happening now.
> >>>>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
> >>>>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
> >>>>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
> >>>>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
> >>>>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
> >>>>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
> >>>>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
> >>>>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
> >>>>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> >>>>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> >>>>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
> >>>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is 
> quite formal,
> >>>>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
> >>>>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
> >>>>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
> >>>>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
> >>>>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
> >>>>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
> >>>>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
> >>>>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
> >>>>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
> >>>>>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
> >>>>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
> >>>>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
> >>>>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
> >>>>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
> >>>>>>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> >>>>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
> >>>>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
> >>>>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
> >>>>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
> >>>>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
> >>>>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
> >>>>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
> >>>>>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
> >>>>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
> >>>>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> >>>>>>>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
> >>>>>>>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
> >>>>>>>>>>>>    internet governance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
> >>>>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
> >>>>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
> >>>>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
> >>>>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
> >>>>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
> >>>>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
> >>>>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to 
> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 
> 'intergovernmental' sense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be 
> submitted on 1Net's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the 
> submission....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All 
> of piece.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
> >>>>>>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
> >>>>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >> > >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140330/385fd152/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun Mar 30 15:44:14 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:44:14 -0300
Subject: [governance] EMC meeting to produce initial contributions to Net
 Mundial Mon and Tue
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2E1KKjK5HeesPM=Zr89o4afOdxe0m+u0a4qw3AgEukZw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Next Monday and Tuesday (31/03 and 01/04) the Executive Multistakeholder
Committee of Net Mundial will meet to write the initial contribution to Net
Mundial based on the inputs that were presented during the public
consultation period. Some of the members of the EMC will be physically in
São Paulo, while others will join remotely. As mentioned before, this
document is a starting point for the discussions among participants during
the two-day Net Mundial meeting.

The drafting exercise that will be carried out for the next two days aims
to identify points of agreement and possible ways forward. It will produce
two documents of 4-5 pages each (one on principles and other on roadmap).
These documents will be forwarded to the High Level Multistakeholder
Committee on April 2nd. Afterwards, the document will be put online for
public comment. Our aim is to give interested parties a chance to know the
documents and react before São Paulo. More information about the platform
for consultation will be shared later.

Best wishes,
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140330/c091e657/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar 30 22:00:47 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:30:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <30EBDB37-8892-48D7-A28B-5C5F4F9DDFB5@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net> <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca> <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net> <1B64BB2C-6045-4CA3-8C0A-CAFE619FA0E9@mail.utoronto.ca> <53272960.6070407@itforchange.net> <30EBDB37-8892-48D7-A28B-5C5F4F9DDFB5@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5338CC4F.8030607@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 30 March 2014 11:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Hi Parminder, I am sorry I did not respond earlier, this message got 
> lost in the tsunami.  I understand and share many of your questions, 
> and have but one question:  are you familiar with the ITU?

Thanks Stephanie, Yes I am quite familiar with the ITU. Sorry, but I did 
not get the point of the question, though.

Best regards, parminder

> Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
> One question:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephanie
>>
>> Just to clarify three points...
>> On Friday 14 March 2014 09:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult 
>>> question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs. 
>>>    I am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no 
>>> question it could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the 
>>> Internet and the modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is 
>>> exactly the kind of envigoration it needs.
>>
>> I have no doubt that the new communicative paradigm centred on the 
>> Internet will fundamentally transform the practice (not the 
>> principles) of democracy. In fact, we know that there are movements 
>> ranging from European cities, to Philippines, to India to the US to 
>> streets of Brazil that represent a strong disenchantment with the 
>> manner political parties system operates today... And many 
>> alternative forms and practices are taking shape... But none of these 
>> resembles what we know as multistakeholderism in the IG space... Does 
>> this say something? In fact, all new democracy forms, no doubt 
>> incipient and experimental yet, are very wary of power of big 
>> business and voice strong opposition to it, much less like IG's MSism 
>> hug it fondly and offer it special political legitimacy... I 
>> challenge the IG MS-ist to bring one grassroots participatory 
>> democratic movement to endorse its pro big business formulae. And I 
>> am serious. please do take me on this challenge. So, lets not employ 
>> the global dissatisfaction with performance of governance 
>> institutions today towards remedies that are worse than the illness. 
>> Yes democracy needs spine-stiffening, and perhaps more, but that 
>> would take place in the heat and dust of the streets where popular 
>> movements build, not in the MSists ivory towers.
>>
>>>  This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder 
>>> model has appeal for many of us.  I will read your materials and 
>>> respond more thoughtfully,
>>
>> Look forward, thanks,
>>> but I would point out one thing...managing a global entity in a 
>>> multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away from the 
>>> nation state.
>>
>> Must also make it clear that I am no special fan of nation states... 
>> I understand it to be a particular political formulation that arise 
>> in the post feudal industrial age scene... And with the 
>> information/Internet age its legitimacy as well as boundaries are 
>> strained... Nothing wrong with it. However, tenets of democracy and 
>> political equality of all people is sacrosanct, And MSism militates 
>> against them,
>>
>>
>>>  The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, 
>>> free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, 
>>> employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious 
>>> freedom, privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is 
>>> already a challenge.  Some states are doing this more effectively 
>>> than others....I would point to the EU, who have in some respects 
>>> higher agricultural standards, more uniform data protection, and 
>>> harmonized e-commerce regulations than we do in North America, in my 
>>> humble opinion.  (this may start a storm of controversy on the list, 
>>> please resist the temptation, I am just trying to point out efforts 
>>> to continue to assert the power to regulate, not really trying to 
>>> say the EU is better.)  The point about the Internet, is it is a key 
>>> enabler in helping us get to whatever stage of global cooperation 
>>> and human development we are capable, as deeply flawed humans, of 
>>> achieving.
>>
>> Yes, precisely becuase the Internet is so important, it needs to be 
>> regulated well, like other areas that you point out... And I believe 
>> that finally, democratic regulation is the best one. Mostly, where 
>> democracies begin to fail, regulations becomes worse, and I may dare 
>> suggest that this could be a problem with North America vis a vis 
>> EU... So, lets seek global democracy for best global regulation.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> More later.
>>> Stephanie
>>> On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation 
>>>> in policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be 
>>>> taken that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy 
>>>> making? (More on agreement and different versions of 
>>>> multistakeholderism or MSism later.) In fact, your points on the 
>>>> need for non governmental 'stakeholders' to have new formal venues 
>>>> of participation which cannot easily be influenced or controlled by 
>>>> policy makers is most important. Last year, I wrotea blog 
>>>> <http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy>where 
>>>> I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
>>>> democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted 
>>>> that are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy 
>>>> makers...
>>>>
>>>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See 
>>>> for instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several 
>>>> others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – 
>>>> for instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – 
>>>> in 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with 
>>>> you on your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such 
>>>> equality of all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat 
>>>> for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual public policy 
>>>> decisions'.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
>>>> strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' 
>>>> expressed in this fashion not a threat to democracy?
>>>>
>>>> Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is 
>>>> certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? 
>>>> Need to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred 
>>>> democratic lines 
>>>> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300>'.
>>>>
>>>> I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in 
>>>> the High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 
>>>> 'equality of all stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point 
>>>> as real negotiations begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal gover!
>>>>>   nment regu
>>>>> !
>>>>>   lation mak
>>>>> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
>>>>>    stands to
>>>>>   be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
>>>>> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>>>>>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>>>>>> So who's able?
>>>>>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of this is really going insane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael is so right
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>>>>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>>>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>>>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org;bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement atbestbits.net  <http://bestbits.net/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>>>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As suchCGI.Br  <http://cgi.br/>  does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Membership ofCGI.br  <http://cgi.br/>  is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net  <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself:https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations -CGI.Br  <http://cgi.br/>  Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br  <http://cgi.br/>  doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org  <http://e164.org/>  <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, seehttp://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director, association
>>>>>>>>>>> for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140331/7dc5dc6c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Mar 31 01:32:07 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:32:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Deadline: 9 Apr] APrIGF Delhi
 2014 - Call for Workshop Proposals!
References: <FEF7F17C-EB0A-4AA6-9B2B-D5A06D1150C5@aprigf.asia>
Message-ID: <0A863864-2CC8-451F-BF03-25D0FEB0C1FE@glocom.ac.jp>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia>
> Date: March 31, 2014 2:22:37 PM GMT+09:00
> To: discuss at aprigf.asia
> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Deadline: 9 Apr] APrIGF Delhi 2014 - Call for Workshop Proposals!
> 
> Call for Workshops
> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 
> APrIGF Delhi 2014, India
> 3-6 Aug 2014
> www.aprigf.asia 
> 
> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) has been held annually since 2010.  The Forum serves as a platform for aggregating IGF related discussions and collaborations at the regional level, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific.  APrIGF 2014 will be co-hosted by Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) and National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).
> 
> The APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Steering Group (MSG) now calls for your participation in developing the Forum agenda in an open process by submitting workshop proposals or topics of interest based on the main theme: Internet to Equinet - An Equitable Internet for the Next Billion!
> 
> Send your workshop proposals of not more than 500 words with the below format to  proposals at aprigf.asia.
> Title of the Workshop
> Thematic area of interest
> Specific Issues of Discussions & Description
> Expected format and Target panel members
> Full name, affiliation and contact details of the workshop organizer 
> Each workshop will be 90 minutes including Q&A and should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in the panel.
> 
> The deadline for submission is 9 April 2014 (Wed) 23:59 UTC.
> 
> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in subscription request.
> 
> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a supporting organisation or sponsor.  Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more information.
> 
> Secretariat of APrIGF
> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_discuss mailing list
> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140331/3ef3f52c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fatimacambronero at gmail.com  Mon Mar 31 07:47:10 2014
From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:47:10 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBGa4SWTnB2s9wLA6cJCvFdOUAnxxysR8u3Mvj=eT4trg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA3zHmGqNSiDsSxRMUBnvi_5q_90n4_RUU2OC=FOsQCbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBGa4SWTnB2s9wLA6cJCvFdOUAnxxysR8u3Mvj=eT4trg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHY4F=wF2w_=axwT5ZyMqPNvJUyingdF-M__FL3Jgvq7pznJVg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sala, All,



Thanks Sala for this email.

I would reminder all of you the deadline for Workshop proposals submissions
is 15 April. This is the link to submit the proposals:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/submit-a-proposal



As Sala mentioned is recommended to read the Guidelines before to submit
the proposals:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/127-workshop-proposals/1588-2014-igf-guidelines-for-workshop-proposals-



Open Consultations and MAG meeting will be held on 19-21 May at the UNESCO
Headquarter in Paris.

IGF Secretariat has shared a document that included Hotels with
preferential rates for this meeting. I am attaching this doc.



I am available to collaborate if you have any doubt or question.



Best Regards,

Fatima


2014-03-26 23:07 GMT-03:00 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:

> Further to the previous email on notification on calls to submit Workshop
> Proposals. Guidelines need to be complied with, kindly visit
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/submit-a-proposal
>
> Regards,
> Sala
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> The United Nations Internet Governance Forum Secretariat through the
>> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) are now accepting Workshop Proposals
>> for this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
>>
>> Visit: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>>
>> Last year the IGC organised and hosted a Workshop on Multistakeholder
>> Selection Processes: Accountability and Transparency where it worked
>> alongside other Stakeholders such as the ICC Basis, ISOC and other
>> independent persons. The community may wish to explore whether there is
>> merit on organising a follow up workshop on this matter.
>>
>> It will also be good to see other IGC Workshops on other issues and
>> matters important to the community where we could have volunteers to
>> moderate. This could also mean working alongside other stakeholders etc. It
>> might also be good to think about having some kind of Civil Society Plenary
>> as a possible side event to enable all civil society organisations and
>> their representatives.
>>
>> The community would also be advised to identify priority areas for
>> advocacy and identify partners and collaborators. There is also room for
>> civil society to better organise itself through organised "rapportering",
>> daily consolidated press releases at the IGF, and volunteers for social
>> media engagement.
>>
>> Fully utilising our global presence could also be key. We also need to
>> identify how we can take priority and focal areas and identify targeted
>> outcomes etc. Whatever, we decide, we should start the planning and
>> thinking now. If ever there was a time to have functional and cohesive
>> advocacy it would be now.
>>
>> With every best wish,
>> 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
>
>


-- 
*Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140331/61d9d79b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Hotels with preferential rates for UNESCO.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27379 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140331/61d9d79b/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon Mar 31 10:22:35 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:22:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] International Journal of Information Technology and
 Web Engineering (IJITWE) Volume 8, Issue 4 Announcement
Message-ID: <01ac01cf4cec$a9299060$fb7cb120$@unimi.it>

Dear Colleague, 

 

I am pleased to provide you with the official announcement for 

International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE)
Volume 8, Issue 4, October - December 2013. 

An Official Publication of the Information Resources Management Association

Published: Quarterly in Print and Electronically

ISSN: 1554-1045; EISSN: 1554-1053; 

Published by IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, USA

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Ghazi I. Alkhatib (Princess Sumaya University for
Technology, Jordan), Ernesto Damiani (University of Milan, Italy)

 

Interested authors should consult the journal's manuscript submission
guidelines at 

http://www.igi-global.com/ijitwe 

 

All inquiries and submissions should be sent to: 

Editor-in-Chief: Ghazi I. Alkhatib at Alkhatib at psut.edu.jo
<mailto:Alkhatib at psut.edu.jo> ; Ernesto Damiani at ernesto.damiani at unimi.it
<mailto:ernesto.damiani at unimi.it>  

 

==============================

GUEST EDITORIAL PREFACE

==============================

 

** Special Issue on Semantic and Web Technologies

Mimoun Malki (Djillali Liabes University of Sidi Bel-Abbes, Sidi Bel-Abbes,
Algeria), Salima Benbernou (Paris Descartes University, Paris, France)

 

To obtain a copy of the Guest Editorial Preface, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/pdf.aspx?tid=103161&ptid=71713&ctid=15&t=Special Issue on
Semantic and Web Technologies 

 

* ARTICLE 1

Enabling Semantic Mediation in DaaS Composition: Service-Based and
Context-Driven Approach

Idir Amine Amarouche (University of Sciences and Technology Houari
Boumediene, Bab-Ezzouar, Algeria), Djamal Benslimane (Claude Bernard Lyon 1
University, Lyon, France), Zaia Alimazighi (University of Sciences and
Technology Houari Boumediene, Bab-Ezzouar, Algeria)

 

As commonly agreed, Web services fall into two categories depending on their
functionality world-altering services and Data-as-a-Service (DaaS). Much
work has been done on automatic DaaS discovery and composition, such as the
query rewriting approach proposed by the database community. In this
context, DaaS is described as Parameterized-RDF View over Domain Ontology
(DO). However, the DO is unable to capture the different perspectives or
viewpoints for the same domain knowledge. This limitation raises semantic
conflicts between pieces of data exchanged during DaaS composition process.
Thus, mediators are typically required to reconcile potential conflicts. In
this paper, the authors propose a service-based approach for automatically
inserting appropriate mediation services in DaaS compositions to resolve
incompatibilities in their data flow. Also, the authors present a
context-driven approach to support semantic mediation between composed
DaaSs. The implementation and the experimental evaluations performed showed
us satisfactory results.

 

To obtain a copy of the entire article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/article/enabling-semantic-mediation-in-daas-composition/1
03163
<http://www.igi-global.com/article/enabling-semantic-mediation-in-daas-compo
sition/103163>  

To read a PDF sample of this article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103163
<http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103163>  

 

* ARTICLE 2

Semantic Cloud: Building Dynamic Mashup in Cloud Environment

Abdelhamid Malki (Djillali Liabes University of Sidi Bel Abbes, Sidi Bel
Abbes, Algeria), Sidi Mohammed Benslimane (Djillali Liabes University of
Sidi Bel Abbes, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria)

 

Mashups allowed a significant advance in the automation of interactions
between applications and Web resources. In particular, the combination of
web Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is seen as a strength, which
can meet the complex needs by combining the functionality and data from
multiple services within a single Mashup application. Automating the process
of building Mashup based mainly on the Semantics Web APIs which facilitate
to the developer their selection and matching. In this paper, we introduce
reference architecture with six layers representing the main functional
blocks for annotating, combining and deploying Web APIs in Cloud
environment. We introduce Semantic Annotation for Web Application
Description Language (SAWADL), an extension of the Web Application
Description Language (WADL) that allows the semantization of the REST Web
Service. The proposed architecture uses the Cloud Computing technology as a
promising solution to increase the number of public API and therefore making
the engineering process of Mashup applications more agile and more flexible.

 

To obtain a copy of the entire article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/article/semantic-cloud/103164
<http://www.igi-global.com/article/semantic-cloud/103164>  

To read a PDF sample of this article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103164
<http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103164>  

 

* ARTICLE 3

Applying CBR Over an AI Planner for Dynamic Web Service Composition

Fouad Henni (LIO Laboratory Oran, University of Mostaganem, Algeria),
Baghdad Atmani (LIO Laboratory Oran, University of Oran, Algeria)

 

Web services have emerged as a major technology for deploying automated
interactions between distributed and heterogeneous applications. The main
advantage of Web services composition is the possibility of creating
value-added services by combining existing ones to achieve customized tasks.
How to combine these services efficiently into an arrangement that is both
functionally sound and architecturally realizable is a very challenging
topic that has founded a significant research area within computer science.
A great deal of recent Web-related research has concentrated on dynamic Web
service composition. Most of proposed models for dynamic composition use
semantic descriptions of Web services through the construction of domain
ontology. In this paper, we present our approach to dynamically produce
composite services. It is based on the use of two Artificial Intelligence
(AI) techniques: Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and AI planning. Our motivating
scenario concerns a national system for the monitoring of childhood
immunization.

 

To obtain a copy of the entire article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/article/applying-cbr-over-an-ai-planner-for-dynamic-web-s
ervice-composition/103165
<http://www.igi-global.com/article/applying-cbr-over-an-ai-planner-for-dynam
ic-web-service-composition/103165>  

To read a PDF sample of this article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103165
<http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103165>  

 

* ARTICLE 4

Geo-Multi-Agent System Based Webmapping Approach Using Multiple
Representation and Generalisation Driven by Domain Ontology

Khalissa Derbal Amieur (Computer Science Department, University of Sciences
and Technology Houari Boumediene, Bab Ezzouar, Algeria), Kamel Boukhalfa
(Computer Science Department, University of Sciences and Technology Houari
Boumediene, Bab Ezzouar, Algeria), Zaia Alimazighi (Computer Science
Department, University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene, Bab
Ezzouar, Algeria)

 

Geographic Information (GI) is currently available at any time, from
anywhere on the surface of the earth, for any person connected to internet.
Some applications of design, implementation, generation and dissemination of
maps on the web are recognized as "Webmapping" application, geographic web
services or more generally on demand-map making tools. All these web
applications aims the satisfaction of user needs by providing personalized
maps in a fast response time with a good quality. However, the complexity
and diversity of aspects taking into account have lead researchers to focus
on one aspect at the expense of others. Consequently, few works have
addressed all these aspects simultaneously. The authors propose in this
paper, a Webmapping approach organized into two main tasks: (1) query
analysis driven by domain ontology in analyzing a query launched by a user
on a web browser and (2) map generation process. The first step allows
extracting and formalizing user needs through two map determinants factors:
the Level of Detail (LoD) and Point of View (PoV) and the second, exploit an
hybrid approach "Multi Representation and Generalization" in storing and
generating geographical data with integrating Multi-Agent technology in all
steps of processing. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposal, a first
tool prototype implementing our approach is so developed using a geographic
vector dataset provided by national cartographic agency.

 

To obtain a copy of the entire article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/article/geo-multi-agent-system-based-webmapping-approach-
using-multiple-representation-and-generalisation-driven-by-domain-ontology/1
03166
<http://www.igi-global.com/article/geo-multi-agent-system-based-webmapping-a
pproach-using-multiple-representation-and-generalisation-driven-by-domain-on
tology/103166>  

To read a PDF sample of this article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103166
<http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103166>  

 

 

* ARTICLE 5

A Query Approximating Approach Over RDF Graphs

Ala Djeddai (LabGED Laboratory, Badji Mokhtar-Annaba University, Annaba,
Algeria), Hassina Seridi-Bouchelaghem (LabGED Laboratory, Badji
Mokhtar-Annaba University, Annaba, Algeria), Med Tarek Khadir (LabGED
Laboratory, Badji Mokhtar-Annaba University, Annaba, Algeria)

 

Regardless of the knowledge structure lack about Resource Description
Framework (RDF) data, difficulties, principally, occur in specifying and
answering queries. Approximate querying is the solution to find relevant
information by getting a set of sub structures (e.g. sub graphs) matching
the query. Approaches based on the structure and others based on semantic,
marginalized the common meaning between concepts in its computing. In this
paper in order to improve the approximation by introducing the meaning
similarity between components in the query and RDF components is proposed,
getting better need satisfaction. The meaning similarity measure can be
calculated using WordNet and used in all steps of the query answering
process. In addition, other important properties in the approximation level
calculation between query paths and RDF paths are considered; besides
indexing and optimizations strategies are performed. Answers are a set of
sub graphs ranked in decreasing order on its matching degree. Experiments
are conducted within real RDF dataset.

 

To obtain a copy of the entire article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/article/a-query-approximating-approach-over-rdf-graphs/10
3167
<http://www.igi-global.com/article/a-query-approximating-approach-over-rdf-g
raphs/103167>  

To read a PDF sample of this article, click on the link below.

www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103167
<http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=103167>  

 

________________________________________

For full copies of the above articles, check for this issue of the
International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE)
in your institution's library. This journal is also included in the IGI
Global aggregated "InfoSci-Journals" database: www.igi-global.com/isj
<http://www.igi-global.com/isj> . 

________________________________________

 

=========================

CALL FOR PAPERS

=========================

 

** Mission of IJITWE:

The main objective of the International Journal of Information Technology
and Web Engineering (IJITWE) is to publish refereed papers in the areas
covering information technology (IT) concepts, tools, methodologies, and
ethnography in the contexts of global communication systems and Web
engineered applications. In accordance with this emphasis on the Web and
communication systems, this journal publishes papers on IT research and
practice that support seamless end-to-end information and knowledge flow
among individuals, teams, and organizations. This end-to-end strategy for
research and practice requires emphasis on integrated research among the
various steps involved in data/knowledge (structured and unstructured)
capture (manual or automated), classification and clustering, storage,
analysis, synthesis, dissemination, display, consumption, and feedback. The
secondary objective is to assist in the evolving and maturing of
IT-dependent organizations, as well as individuals, in information and
knowledge based Web engineering frameworks, processes, applications,
integrated research, case studies, and platforms.

Coverage of IJITWE:

Topics to be discussed in this journal include (but are not limited to) the
following: 

- Case studies validating Web-based IT solutions 

- Competitive/intelligent information systems 

- Data analytics for business and government organizations 

- Data and knowledge capture and quality issues 

- Data and knowledge validation and verification 

- Human factors and cultural impact of IT-based systems 

- Information filtering and display adaptation techniques for wireless
devices 

- Integrated heterogeneous and homogeneous workflows and databases within
and across organizations, suppliers, and customers 

- Integrated user profiling, provisioning, and context-based processing 

- IT education and training 

- IT readiness and technology transfer studies 

- Knowledge structure, classification, and search algorithms or engines 

- Metrics-based performance measurement of IT-based, Web-based
organizations, and social networks. 

- Mobile, location-aware, and ubiquitous computing 

- Ontology and Semantic Web studies 

- Quality of service and service level agreement issues among integrated
systems 

- Radio frequency identification (RFID) research and applications in Web
engineered systems 

- Security, integrity, privacy, and policy issues 

- Software agent-based applications 

- Strategies for linking business and IT requirements 

- Virtual teams and virtual enterprises: communication, policies, operation,
creativity, and innovation 

- Web engineering platforms: networks and cloud computing, with related
application and security issues. 

- Web systems architectures, including distributed grid computers and
communication systems processing 

- Web systems engineering design 

- Web systems performance engineering studies 

- Web user interfaces design, development, and usability engineering studies


 

Interested authors should consult the journal's manuscript submission
guidelines
www.igi-global.com/calls-for-papers/international-journal-information-techno
logy-web/1093
<http://www.igi-global.com/calls-for-papers/international-journal-informatio
n-technology-web/1093>  

 

 

*****************************************************

For full copies of the above articles, check for this issue of the
International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE)
in your institution's library.  This journal is also included in the IGI
Global aggregated "InfoSci-Journals" database:
http://www.igi-global.com/EResources/InfoSciJournals.aspx. 

*****************************************************

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140331/69b1955d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t