From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 1 00:57:28 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 13:57:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri, Could you give a link to the document you refer to. Or send a copy of the doc to the list. Thanks, Adam On May 1, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well day one came and went. > > We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, > and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: > > - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments > - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. > > - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and > Responsibilities > - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. > > - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report > - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models > > - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the > differences of viewpoint. > - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own > viewpoints. > > - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) > opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism > - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find > the item(s) we can reach consensus on. > > (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is > a quiz) > > > The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived > recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat > has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a > first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months > later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - > not that any did participate as far as I know. > > Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute > slot just before breaks. > > While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, > these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were > not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own > mandate. The chair concurred. > > Tomorrow is another day. > > avri > > (a cs nominated member of the wgec) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 1 01:50:14 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 07:50:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Message-ID: <5361E096.5070901@acm.org> Hi, Apologies I meant para 35 of the Tunis Agenda, not 32. As for other documents, there are multiple versions of the text in progress. - recommendations agreed and to be revisted - opinions and statements - recommendations not yet accepted at 3rd meeting - recommendations not yet reviewed https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B55cFPaDsEfFVU9UR3JsX0VHdWs&usp=sharing there is a google drive doc of the current state. but I can't find the url for that this morning. avri On 01-May-14 06:57, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Avri, > > Could you give a link to the document you refer to. Or send a copy of the doc to the list. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > On May 1, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Well day one came and went. >> >> We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, >> and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: >> >> - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments >> - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. >> >> - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and >> Responsibilities >> - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. >> >> - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report >> - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models >> >> - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the >> differences of viewpoint. >> - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own >> viewpoints. >> >> - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) >> opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism >> - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find >> the item(s) we can reach consensus on. >> >> (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is >> a quiz) >> >> >> The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived >> recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat >> has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a >> first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months >> later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - >> not that any did participate as far as I know. >> >> Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute >> slot just before breaks. >> >> While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, >> these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were >> not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own >> mandate. The chair concurred. >> >> Tomorrow is another day. >> >> avri >> >> (a cs nominated member of the wgec) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 1 02:11:54 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 08:11:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <5361E096.5070901@acm.org> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361E096.5070901@acm.org> Message-ID: <5361E5AA.9090604@acm.org> Hi, One further point. After the discussion of the points that had originally been presented on behalf of a group of WGEC Members and Observers (Avri Doria, Grace Githaiga, Lea Kaspar, and Joy Liddicoat) on 12 February 2014 - (copied below), we were asked to review and revise. This is what was presented after that revision effort over lunch. ---- Recommends that existing mechanisms for public policy related Internet issues take into account existing multistakeholder approaches to Internet governance. Recommends that existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms be used to support Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders including governments on an equal footing. Encourages the UN and the global Internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation/engagement of all stakeholders from developing countries,to ensure that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of internet policy globally. Encourages and enables developing countries, including both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing multistakeholder mechanisms at national and regional level and by democratisation at all levels including the global level. ---- This was rejected by Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and Parminder It received a fair degree of support from other group members, though we were told they would look for some wording changes if it ever got close to consensus. Which it probably won't. avri Original proposal by WGEC Members and Observers (Avri Doria, Grace Githaiga, Lea Kaspar, and Joy Liddicoat) on (12 February 2014) ● No new multilateral arrangements are required to support Enhanced Cooperation in developing countries; ● Encourage the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; ● Encourage the UN and the global internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation/engagement of stakeholder from developing countries, in the perspective of ensuring that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of internet policy globally. ● Encourage governments of developing countries to foster engagement with Internet governance issues at the national and regional levels. ● Enable developing countries, including both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing mechanisms at national and regional level and by democratisation at all level including the global level. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 1 04:51:32 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 10:51:32 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Avri, I participated remotely and it was indeed a clear demonstration of the unwillingness by some governments to move towards rough consensus. It is not a big surprise that those governments more or less ignore the new quality Netmundial has reached. They hate the New Mundial model because they feel this will undermine their role. Staying there in the queue and waiting until a civil society person as made some critical remarks is not the role an ambassador in Geneva wants to play. They accept the involvement of non-governmental stakeholders in Internet Governance only as long as they have the leadership (this is their "respective role"). Sharing of decision making, as proposed by the WGIG working definition from 2005, is not their approach. This respective role language goes back to the 2003 Geneva WSIS Declaration of Principles. Already the Tunis Agenda in 2005 went one step beyond this classical division of labour (but repeated also the Geneva language). And now we have 2014 and language from Sao Paulo. What counts? My impression is that - in combination with the IANA transition - we will move towards a long lasting battle about what is the right multistakeholder model. We have to be very careful not to loose the momentum from Sao Paulo. The efforts by the Group of 77 in New York to get a 3rd WSIS Summit in 2015 is a clear signal that a large number of governments believe that the UN/WSIS multistakeholder model with governments in the final decision making role is the better place. And WSIS 10+ is more or less in the hands of governments (UNGIS). Insofar the WSIS 10+ High Level Event (June 10 - 13 2014) in Geneva will be important and Civil Society should remember its CS WSIS structures and procedures to bring as much as possible "NetMundialism" into this meeting. Unfortunately it is parallel to EURODIG in Berlin, so a lot of Europeans will miss WSIS 10+. What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von joy Gesendet: Do 01.05.2014 05:27 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 Thanks so much for this update Avri - a very deft summary. I am really sorry I could not attend this meeting of the Working Group. The originally agreed meeting dates for later in May, which I could attend, were changed and the new dates clashed with a long-standing personal commitment in New Zealand, so I have given my apologies. I'm fully supportive of the strong civil society stance you're on record as taking. Joy On 1/05/2014 10:19 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well day one came and went. > > We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, > and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: > > - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments > - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. > > - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and > Responsibilities > - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. > > - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report > - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models > > - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the > differences of viewpoint. > - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own > viewpoints. > > - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) > opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism > - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find > the item(s) we can reach consensus on. > > (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is > a quiz) > > > The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived > recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat > has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a > first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months > later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - > not that any did participate as far as I know. > > Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute > slot just before breaks. > > While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, > these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were > not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own > mandate. The chair concurred. > > Tomorrow is another day. > > avri > > (a cs nominated member of the wgec) > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu May 1 07:46:29 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 04:46:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform that we've just very successfully created. /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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 08:26:14 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 14:26:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. JC Post-scriptum: John, Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? JC Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : > On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. > > If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models > of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a > repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... > > If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such > improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to > maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding > years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in > agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan > for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out > the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform > that we've just very successfully created. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu May 1 08:41:57 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 05:41:57 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On May 1, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? JC - I am on the governance list as a resource to this community, and as such am available as you see fit. You might find that I have far more mundane views about the "Internet Governance" eco-system than my passion regarding the necessary coordination that must occur for working global Internet identifiers, but please feel free to ask any questions that you feel I may be able to assist with... Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu May 1 10:01:40 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:01:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> Message-ID: Ian, thank you for this appreciation for the participation of civil society at the summit of Brazil. It should recognize that our diversity is immeasurable wealth that we have been able to exploit a wisely. It is also necessary to recognize that within civil society, there has leaders, analysts, futurists .... but a veritable kaleidoscope of cultural and scientific values. Exchanges before the summit and erected enough, even if the DRC has not been able to establish the necessary devices for remote participation, I could Shared Information of Summit not only in my country but also in the all countries of Central Africa. This truly historic Summit thank you to all 2014-04-25 15:17 GMT+02:00 Ian Peter : > The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long > flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and > the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well > together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with > a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume > of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, > with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand > down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team > work. > > As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – > and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like > all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that > should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that > after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for > us, and is worth repeating. > > As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were > areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at > last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of > drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those > committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some > governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, > more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches > the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. > > But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be > involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, > and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad > it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our > behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, > but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. > > Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work > everyone, really worthwhile event. > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 1 12:07:54 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:07:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. Stephanie Perrin On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. > > So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. > > Thanks > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: > I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... > 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. > 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? > 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over > 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. > 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? > 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective > 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. > 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. > 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. > > Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. > > If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. > > Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. > > In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? > > A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. > > JC > > Post-scriptum: > John, > Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? > > JC > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : > >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >> >> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >> >> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >> that we've just very successfully created. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 13:27:51 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:27:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks for your answer and interest, As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. JC Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > +1 A welcome reminder of reality. > Stephanie Perrin > On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >> >> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >> >> Thanks >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >> >> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >> >> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >> >> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >> >> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >> >> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >> >> JC >> >> Post-scriptum: >> John, >> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >> >> JC >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >> >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>> >>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>> >>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>> that we've just very successfully created. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 1 13:59:23 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 13:59:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. Kind regards, Stephanie On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks for your answer and interest, > > As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? > > 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? > > I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. > > The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. > > JC > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > >> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >> Stephanie Perrin >> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>> >>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>> >>> Thanks >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> >>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>> >>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>> >>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>> >>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>> >>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>> >>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> Post-scriptum: >>> John, >>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>> >>> JC >>> >>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>> >>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>> >>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>> >>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>> >>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>> >>>> /John >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 14:10:29 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 20:10:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <812290EF-7F66-47EA-9788-A3D8D107B72C@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Stephanie, I suggested to launch a dialogue, presumably knowing that there are a few stakeholders out here. I suggested to have a CS conversation indeed so to see if any CS common ground exists - I am not convinced this cannot be achieved, as I do not see a true CS conversation going on, with so many interferences polluting the CS floor. Having a larger ground from the CS would increase its ability to influence other parties, whether the private sector or the governments. In my opinion this conversation is mostly needed among the CS (out of the I*, the 5 eyes, and governments). Shining a light of the different visions of a full eco-system seems to be a good and potentially fruitful perspective. So are you saying that it cannot be a CS dialogue, without embedding all other parties - what you call stakeholders. Am I understanding you correctly? No CS dialogue because it contradicts the multistakeholder model? Waiting for Seun reaction and comments as you know have very different understanding of what Seun wrote. JC Le 1 mai 2014 à 19:59, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. > By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > Kind regards, > Stephanie > On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Thanks for your answer and interest, >> >> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >> >> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >> >> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >> >> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >> >>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>> >>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> >>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>> >>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>> >>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>> >>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>> >>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>> >>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Post-scriptum: >>>> John, >>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>> >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>> >>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>> >>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>> >>>>> /John >>>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu May 1 15:04:00 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] english version of Marco Civil Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have prepared. You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I have reviewed it once again. Best, Carolina -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPROVED-MARCO-CIVIL-MAY-2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 88711 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu May 1 15:08:02 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 21:08:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC's response to NETmundial 2014 in Esp. In-Reply-To: <53615429.4030305@apc.org> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> <53615429.4030305@apc.org> Message-ID: <53629B92.8090604@apc.org> And here it is in Spanish - one of our members did a quick translation. http://blog.pangea.org/2014/05/netmundial-2/ Anriette On 30/04/2014 21:51, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Response from the Association for Communications on the outcome of > NETMUndial 2014. > > Anriette > > http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/ > > By (APC) > Johannesburg, April 2014 > > NETmundial was a remarkable and historic event. To give it its due and > build on it going forward, it is necessary to acknowledge its > achievements as well as its flaws. > > *Affirming the “publicness” of the internet: Gains and gaps* > The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement > > represents substantial progress towards public interest-driven > internet governance. It recognises the internet as a common resource > that should be managed in the public interest. “Public good”, or > Neelie Kroes’ term > , > “global, common, public resource”, would have been preferable, but > this is nevertheless a powerful step towards protecting the > “publicness” of the internet. > > Linked to this is affirmation of the value of openness and > interoperability, of “permissionless innovation”, and the need to > support public access to the internet (one of APC’s priorities). It is > disappointing, however, that protection for intermediaries from > liability was mentioned not as a precondition of protecting rights > such as free expression and association, but as linked to “economic > growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information”. There > can be little doubt that this text expresses the interest of the > entertainment industry. APC believes this framing opens the door to > requiring internet intermediaries to enforce intellectual property > rights in ways that interfere with rights to free expression and > access to knowledge. > > Consensus was not reached on network neutrality, or the principle of > free flow of information, and non-discriminatory flow of data packets > across the network. This was ironic, as this principle was enshrined > in the Brazilian Marco Civil da Internet > > (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet), enacted by President Dilma > Rousseff during the opening of NETMundial. While not discounting the > commercial interests at stake in avoiding inclusion of network > neutrality as a principle, its discussion is also complicated by > different definitions of what the concept means, and of how it applies > in various contexts. We applaud that the NETmundial Statement roadmap > identifies net neutrality as an area for further discussion and look > forward to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) taking this up in the > near future. > > We would have liked to see more reference to development, social > justice, the integration of the concerns of people from the developing > world, and the role the internet can play to support a more just and > sustainable world. Quoting from Nnenna Nwakanma’s inspiring opening > speech : “The Internet is > fast becoming the dominant means for wealth creation. The ‘Right to > Development’ needs to include social justice. It is not enough to do a > superficial ‘capacity building’ for a few persons. We are looking at a > mechanism that allows for the highest number of persons to be > included, the largest number of voices to be heard, the widest extent > of talents to access innovation, and the deepest creativity of the > human minds to flourish. For these, we need to start considering the > Internet as public commons.” > > *Human rights apply offline and online!* > NETmundial identified fundamental human rights as key principles for > internet governance and states that governments have specific > accountability for upholding and protecting individual human rights on > the internet. We applaud this, but believe that the roadmap section of > the document needed to consider internet-specific aspects of human > rights protection in greater detail ‒ in particular, rights which are > needed to ensure free expression and association on the internet such > as the right to anonymity and the right to use encryption. > > *Deepening democracy in multi-stakeholder internet governance* > A further breakthrough in the document is recognition that internet > governance needs to be democratic as well as multi-stakeholder, and > that the former is not necessarily synonymous with the latter. It > identified the need for mechanisms that ensure accountability, review > and redress in internet governance, as well as for gender balance in > discussions and decision making. > > The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement builds positively on the > Tunis Agenda in > its recognition that stakeholder groups do not always have fixed > roles, but that these “respective roles and responsibilities of > stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference > to the issue under discussion.” This paves the way for constructive > discussion of the specific roles of stakeholders in different parts of > the internet governance ecosystem, with reference to the issue and > process under discussion. In other words, rather than talk about > whether governments should have a role or not, we can focus on what > this role is and where and when it is most needed. > > *Mass surveillance: The elephant that left the room* > Most disappointing is that mass surveillance was not condemned more > strongly in the final version of the Statement, with some of the > governmental participants insisting at the last minute that the phrase > “mass surveillance is fundamentally inconsistent with the right to > privacy and the principle of proportionality” be removed from the > document. > > Considering that the event emerged from outrage following Edward > Snowden’s revelations, and that mass surveillance was cited as a major > concern in inputs received on the draft documents, this issue can best > be described as the elephant which started out inside the room, but > which was then lifted and carried out ‒ by suitably powerful forces ‒ > before the event’s conclusion. > > The document does state that “mass and arbitrary surveillance > undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance > ecosystem” and cooperation – forced or voluntary – between states and > business is addressed by the requirement that the “collection and > processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be > conducted in accordance with international human rights law,” but this > does not address the protection of individual rights that are violated > on an extraterritorial basis. > > Also included is a renewed call upon states from the 2013 UN General > Assembly Resolution > > for the review of “their procedures, practices and legislation > regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and > collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception > and collection,.with a view to upholding the right to privacy by > ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their > obligations under international human rights law.” This provides an > opening for follow-up action which rights activists should pursue with > vigour. > > *IANA accountability* > We are encouraged that the issue of Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority (IANA) accountability will be an integral part of the > discussions on the National Telecommunications and Information > Administration (NTIA) transition. We look forward to the continuation > of the process once the terms of the accountability process are > published. We rely on the unfolding of a neutral process to review the > accountable transition of IANA stewardship with the full participation > of all global stakeholders and with due consideration given to the > importance of structural separation between policy and operational levels. > > *What was avoided?* > The most striking absence at NETmundial, in spite of several > submissions raising this as a concern, is a call to put a stop to the > increasing militarisation of the internet. Clearly this is an issue > that should be taken up through the IGF process. > > *NETmundial as a process: Leaps, lessons and let-downs* > We want to express our appreciation for the hard work that the > organising team put into the NETmundial process, in particular CGI.br > and the event chairperson, Virgilio A. F. Almeida, Secretary for > Information Technology Policy of the Ministry of Science, Technology > and Innovation of Brazil. > > NETmundial represents great leaps forward for multi-stakeholder > decision making, building on inclusive, multi-stakeholder habits > developed during eight editions of the IGF, and providing useful > lessons for the future. More time and better planning was needed to > integrate inputs – received through an excellent online platform – > into the final outcome documents. It would also have been good to use > the face-to-face event for more discussion rather than for > open-microphone sessions in which most of what had been said online > already was repeated. Drafting of the outcome document could also have > been done in a more systematic manner, ensuring that people with the > necessary area knowledge were available to the chairs of the two > drafting groups (Principles and Roadmap). > > The let-down was that at the end, when the pre-final text was being > presented to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee, the process > suddenly felt quite familiar, as, at the last minute, a few > governments insisted on changes to the text, demanding either > deletions or modifications to statements that they were not > comfortable with. We understand that government representatives are > constrained by instructions from their capitals or by existing > agreements; but if we are to deepen democracy in global internet > governance, we do need to find ways to move beyond these constraints > when finalising such a non-binding document, as they serve to limit > more balanced stakeholder input and influence. > > If powerful governments, whose views often coincide with those of some > parts of internet industry, can still exercise a veto – even if > informally – at the last minute, we have quite a way to go towards > fully inclusive and democratic internet governance. Intergovernmental > processes are often criticised for producing lower common denominator > consensus agreements. Democratic, multi-stakeholder decision-making > processes must strive to avoid this. > > *What next?* > There is much to celebrate. A group of very diverse stakeholders > worked together to produce a document which has the potential to > create a more robust and human rights- and public interest-oriented > approach to internet policy and management. The Government of Brazil > showed grace, leadership and deep commitment to inclusive processes by > being willing to concede on a range of issues, most particularly > network neutrality. > > The question now is: What next? How do we follow through to implement > the good in the NETmundial document and how do we strengthen the > existing IGF to play a role in this? Surveillance is the obvious place > to start, with governments heeding the call to review all collection, > processing and surveillance of personal data to ensure that these > processes comply with human rights standards, such as the ones stated > in the Necessary and Proportionate principles > . Promoting awareness of > the issues behind the network neutrality debate are also a ripe area > for focus, as they provide a valuable entry point into a number of > basic challenges in dealing with conflict of interest around private > enterprise and promoting the publicness of the internet. > > And of course we cannot rest until, as the declaration states, we have > “universal, equal opportunity, affordable and high quality Internet > access”, so that we can all participate more equally in the debate. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 1 16:04:38 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:04:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Exactly! SP On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) > > Thanks > > Cheers! > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. > By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > Kind regards, > Stephanie > > On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Thanks for your answer and interest, >> >> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >> >> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >> >> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >> >> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >> >>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>> >>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> >>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>> >>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>> >>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>> >>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>> >>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>> >>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Post-scriptum: >>>> John, >>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>> >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>> >>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>> >>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>> >>>>> /John >>>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Thu May 1 16:34:09 2014 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 21:34:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Hi all An ecosystem depends on all its parts for the good of all in a sustainable manner. The onus is on CS to keep engaging & talking on these issues without walking away. Knowing certain stakeholders & vested interest, the goal is to show that by collaboratively working to agree on thorny issues like right to privacy, security, FoE et al everyone truly benefits. Walking away from the process only means we all are 'poorer' On 1 May 2014 21:09, "Stephanie Perrin wro > Exactly! > SP > On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) >> >> Thanks >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>> >>> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. >>> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. >>> Kind regards, >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for your answer and interest, >>>> >>>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >>>> >>>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >>>> >>>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >>>> >>>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >>>> >>>>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Post-scriptum: >>>>>>> John, >>>>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Thu May 1 17:36:19 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 18:36:19 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> Dear All, To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for NETmundial was NOT from government, but was from CGI.br, a non-for-profit multistakeholder entity. best Hartmut Glaser ==================================== On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Exactly! > SP > On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > >> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. >> For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When >> you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) >> you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was >> heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) >> >> Thanks >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: >> *However I think we should remember that civil society without >> support from others (most especially government and perhaps >> business) is just a dream that could be far from reality.* >> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder >> process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, >> and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they >> need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. >> Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little >> without partners. I was actually not referring to financial >> support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. >> Kind regards, >> Stephanie >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal > > wrote: >> >>> Thanks for your answer and interest, >>> >>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise >>> to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an >>> open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future >>> eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not >>> receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of >>> Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of >>> your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose >>> the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with >>> pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from >>> that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their >>> respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie >>> refers to? >>> >>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger >>> the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success >>> remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little >>> concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome >>> document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language >>> remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be >>> envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the >>> danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >>> >>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >>> >>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the >>> time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a >>> danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the >>> reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >>> >>>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your >>>>> mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil >>>>> society without support from others (most especially >>>>> government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be >>>>> far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if >>>>> it did not receive support from the host. >>>>> >>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and >>>>> "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I >>>>> think our acts should not lean towards being independent but >>>>> rather towards collaborative independence for them overall >>>>> sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>> >>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>>>> Journal" >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very >>>>> uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is >>>>> understood differently by each participant. Faithful to >>>>> WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of >>>>> these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the >>>>> many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy >>>>> here, but it should be more of that now. >>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not >>>>> less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, >>>>> not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement >>>>> is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible >>>>> agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away >>>>> from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say >>>>> that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS >>>>> division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the >>>>> final outcome document : we are beginning to have more >>>>> details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very >>>>> beginning. >>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 >>>>> deadline? >>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to >>>>> pursue any serious objective >>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS >>>>> participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the >>>>> final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of >>>>> danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as >>>>> a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical >>>>> problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final >>>>> document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or >>>>> its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global >>>>> window dressing - open an office here and there, like in >>>>> the old colonial times. >>>>> >>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final >>>>> outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more >>>>> action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to >>>>> fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, >>>>> private sector are playing their game, then CS could come >>>>> to a common position. Based on this, CS could really >>>>> represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case >>>>> today. >>>>> >>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest >>>>> effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, >>>>> coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>>> >>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, >>>>> wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground >>>>> that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, >>>>> out of governments. There are diverse visions of what >>>>> could Internet Governance be. John said there was no >>>>> alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask >>>>> for that. An alternative has been presented as a >>>>> submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse >>>>> opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in >>>>> essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet >>>>> Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet >>>>> Organization >>>>> are >>>>> the natural next steps. An original pair would bring >>>>> guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even >>>>> mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see >>>>> what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, >>>>> and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of >>>>> ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One >>>>> root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing >>>>> vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the >>>>> USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront >>>>> each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of >>>>> governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and >>>>> ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of >>>>> the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about >>>>> naming and addressing. >>>>> >>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the >>>>> CS major concern)? >>>>> >>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she >>>>> listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front >>>>> of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for >>>>> Internet. Now. >>>>> >>>>> JC >>>>> >>>>> Post-scriptum: >>>>> John, >>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative >>>>> eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>>> >>>>> JC >>>>> >>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in >>>>>>> 2019? This would help to keep some of the working >>>>>>> mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a >>>>>>> perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). >>>>>>> Net Mundial could become something like the olympics >>>>>>> which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the >>>>>>> annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>>> >>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>>> >>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to >>>>>> expect to >>>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the >>>>>> plan >>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely >>>>>> hollow out >>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>>> >>>>>> /John >>>>>> >>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> /Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> / >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 1 18:13:56 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 00:13:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS dialogue over visions of future eco-system for the governance of Internet In-Reply-To: <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> Message-ID: Dear Harmut, Thanks for that. To avoid any misunderstanding, Netmundial was officially supported by CGI.br and ICANN. Right? Do we have any breakdown? Does CGI.br receive money from the Brazilian government, and/or private corporations and foundations? Correct? Just to have a clear picture. As you kindly give us an information regarding funding, I am asking these questions just for the record, as my primary intention is to see how we could have a specific dialogue with other CS regarding the different visions of what could be a complete new eco-system for the governance of Internet. What would it be in 2020 let's say. This would not require any specific expenses. That would require willingness, time and openness. But this would not be per say a multistakeholder thing. It would a multiparty CS process. I am curious to see if CS can gain over some common ground. It seems like some CS (see previous emails from Stephanie, Seun) already consider that it would be impossible to do so, - as everything is so intertwined with other stakeholders - talking to each other in CS would isolate CS from other stakeholders - it might upset hosting power, or other stakeholders, that are presently listening to CS. So in order not to lose these friendly ears, CS could avoid looking for a "free word" that could endanger their current cooperation with other stakeholders. I am trying to keep up with arguments but might still be wrong in my wrapping-up, and therefore happy to be corrected. Happy as well to have more comments and opinions. I will shortly provide a short state of the current CS visions. Best to you as well, JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor and head of strategy at GLOBAL_GENEVA jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 1 mai 2014 à 23:36, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit : > > Dear All, > > To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for NETmundial was NOT from government, but > was from CGI.br, a non-for-profit multistakeholder entity. > > best > > Hartmut Glaser > > ==================================== > On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Exactly! >> SP >> On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. >>> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. >>> Kind regards, >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for your answer and interest, >>>> >>>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >>>> >>>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >>>> >>>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >>>> >>>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >>>> >>>>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>>>> >>>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>>>> >>>>>> JC >>>>>> >>>>>> Post-scriptum: >>>>>> John, >>>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>>>> >>>>>> JC >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Thu May 1 19:18:50 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 20:18:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: CS dialogue over visions of future eco-system for the governance of Internet In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> Message-ID: <5362D65A.3040408@cgi.br> Dear All, I don't have the final numbers (I am already working on that), but the initial agreement was that *50% of all infrastructure expenses***(hotel rooms, lunch and coffee breaks, WiFi, translation in 07 languages, interconnection of hubs, YouTube and streaming for the world) *would be supported ** **by CGI.br* (_without__any support from the brazilian government - with exception of the free VISAS for all participants)_ and the other 50% by /1netrelated entities. The exception on this agreement was for the travel support: CGI.br don't contributed nothing for the "Travel Fund". This Fund was supported by international "third parties" and I don't have these numbers. best Hartmut Glaser ============================================================ On 01/05/14 19:13, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Dear Harmut, > > Thanks for that. To avoid any misunderstanding, Netmundial was > officially supported by CGI.br and ICANN. Right? Do we > have any breakdown? Does CGI.br receive money from the > Brazilian government, and/or private corporations and foundations? > Correct? Just to have a clear picture. > > As you kindly give us an information regarding funding, I am asking > these questions just for the record, as my primary intention is to see > how we could have a specific dialogue with other CS regarding the > different visions of what could be a complete new eco-system for the > governance of Internet. What would it be in 2020 let's say. This would > not require any specific expenses. That would require willingness, > time and openness. But this would not be per say a multistakeholder > thing. It would a multiparty CS process. I am curious to see if CS can > gain over some common ground. It seems like some CS (see previous > emails from Stephanie, Seun) already consider that it would be > impossible to do so, > - as everything is so intertwined with other stakeholders > - talking to each other in CS would isolate CS from other stakeholders > - it might upset hosting power, or other stakeholders, that are > presently listening to CS. So in order not to lose these friendly > ears, CS could avoid looking for a "free word" that could endanger > their current cooperation with other stakeholders. > > I am trying to keep up with arguments but might still be wrong in my > wrapping-up, and therefore happy to be corrected. Happy as well to > have more comments and opinions. > > I will shortly provide a short state of the current CS visions. > > Best to you as well, > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor and head of strategy at GLOBAL_GENEVA > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 23:36, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit : > >> >> Dear All, >> >> To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for >> NETmundial was NOT from government, but >> was from CGI.br , a non-for-profit multistakeholder >> entity. >> >> best >> >> Hartmut Glaser >> >> ==================================== >> On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> Exactly! >>> SP >>> On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji >> > wrote: >>> >>>> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. >>>> For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. >>>> When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at >>>> NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that >>>> your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this >>>> sentence: *However I think we should remember that civil >>>> society without support from others (most especially government >>>> and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from >>>> reality.* >>>> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a >>>> multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are >>>> other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and >>>> figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That >>>> is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They >>>> will achieve little without partners. I was actually not >>>> referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, >>>> my apologies. >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >>>> Global Journal >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for your answer and interest, >>>>> >>>>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little >>>>> surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying >>>>> that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have >>>>> of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? >>>>> "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host >>>>> in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are >>>>> you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for >>>>> the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao >>>>> Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this >>>>> what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS >>>>> entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? >>>>> Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >>>>> >>>>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to >>>>> endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this >>>>> success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved >>>>> little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The >>>>> outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its >>>>> language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be >>>>> envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the >>>>> danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >>>>> >>>>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >>>>> >>>>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the >>>>> time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a >>>>> danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about >>>>> the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >>>>> >>>>> JC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of >>>>>>> your mail is great. However I think we should remember that >>>>>>> civil society without support from others (most especially >>>>>>> government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could >>>>>>> be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream >>>>>>> if it did not receive support from the host. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial >>>>>>> and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive >>>>>>> improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being >>>>>>> independent but rather towards collaborative independence >>>>>>> for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>>>>>> Journal" >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very >>>>>>> uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is >>>>>>> understood differently by each participant. Faithful to >>>>>>> WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of >>>>>>> these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the >>>>>>> many visions - I would not dare speaking about >>>>>>> philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not >>>>>>> less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, >>>>>>> not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement >>>>>>> is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible >>>>>>> agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away >>>>>>> from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say >>>>>>> that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS >>>>>>> division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the >>>>>>> final outcome document : we are beginning to have more >>>>>>> details regarding the overall flaw process - from the >>>>>>> very beginning. >>>>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 >>>>>>> deadline? >>>>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to >>>>>>> pursue any serious objective >>>>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some >>>>>>> CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in >>>>>>> the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot >>>>>>> of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial >>>>>>> as a mode, when from the very beginning they were >>>>>>> critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final >>>>>>> document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or >>>>>>> its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global >>>>>>> window dressing - open an office here and there, like in >>>>>>> the old colonial times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final >>>>>>> outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more >>>>>>> action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time >>>>>>> to fight for having a seat in the different venues where >>>>>>> gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS >>>>>>> could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could >>>>>>> really represent a serious power in the game. It is not >>>>>>> the case today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest >>>>>>> effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, >>>>>>> coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, >>>>>>> wouldn't the CS come together and find this common >>>>>>> ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 >>>>>>> eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of >>>>>>> what could Internet Governance be. John said there was >>>>>>> no alternative to the current governance. He is right to >>>>>>> ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a >>>>>>> submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from >>>>>>> diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully >>>>>>> democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A >>>>>>> World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World >>>>>>> Internet Organization >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> the natural next steps. An original pair would bring >>>>>>> guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial >>>>>>> even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to >>>>>>> see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or >>>>>>> whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic >>>>>>> thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market >>>>>>> orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. >>>>>>> Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to >>>>>>> ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS >>>>>>> forces do not confront each other vision of what could >>>>>>> be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. >>>>>>> 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially >>>>>>> the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was >>>>>>> supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be >>>>>>> the CS major concern)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said >>>>>>> she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in >>>>>>> front of the world), would be welcome. We need a >>>>>>> CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Post-scriptum: >>>>>>> John, >>>>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative >>>>>>> eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in >>>>>>>>> 2019? This would help to keep some of the working >>>>>>>>> mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a >>>>>>>>> perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and >>>>>>>>> beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the >>>>>>>>> olympics which takes place in a four or five year >>>>>>>>> cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in >>>>>>>>> between. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same >>>>>>>> models >>>>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize >>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to >>>>>>>> expect to >>>>>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and >>>>>>>> succeeding >>>>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today >>>>>>>> the plan >>>>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely >>>>>>>> hollow out >>>>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF >>>>>>>> reform >>>>>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> /Seun Ojedeji, >>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>>> //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>>> / >>>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From squ24n at gmail.com Thu May 1 19:29:17 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 08:29:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] The South Korean civil society response to NETmundial Message-ID: Dear all, In South Korea, we issued a joint NGO statement on NETmundial below. Best regards, Borami english version -> http://nnforum.kr/87 korean version -> http://www.ccej.or.kr/index.php?document_srl=405849 *The South Korean Civil Society Statement on NETmunidal* *This is a new chapter in building participatory and democratic Internet governance* *We welcome the Multistakeholders' Declaration of Sao Paulo* On 23-24, April, a global multistakeholder meeting on Internet governance , “NETmundial,” was held to discuss the Internet Governance Principles and future approaches in Sao Paulo, Brazil. This meeting was considered historic in that it enabled multistakeholder participation during the process, enabling governments, civil societies, private sectors, technical communities, and academia, etc., to participate in the process of determining the final resulting content of meeting. Over 180 contributing opinions were submitted during the opinion submission phase before the conference, and the “draft outcome document” that was prepared by the Executive Multistakeholder Committee based on the contributions produced over 1370 comments prior to the actual meeting. The two-day face-to-face meeting also provided open-microphone opprtunities for the respective stakeholders to voice additional opinions. The final document, the “Net-mundial Multistakeholders' Declaration of Sao Paulo” on Internet governance was praised by many to be the result of an unprecedented process of global multistakeholder participation, and was accepted through a rough consensus. *The first global declaration based on a rough consensus of multistakeholders* A key concept that was included in the title of the meeting was “Multistakeholder” which means that multistakeholders, i.e., the government, civil societies, technical communities and academias, and the individual users can participate in the Internet public policy decision-making process with equal status and in a democratically participatory fashion. When we consider the fact that existing “international declarations” have been issued exclusively either by intergovernmental/international bodies or by global civil societies, the Sao Paulo declaration takes on the special status of being the first global ‘multistakeholder’ declaration where relevant stakeholders were given horizontal status during the deliberation process and were able to arrive at a general consensus in an open and transparent manner. However, this goal of multistakeholder consensus inevitably resulted in a final declaration not being able to accommodate many of the important issues that were supported by civil societies. Adoption of a clear statement endorsing net neutrality was passed over to future discussions, and we had to accept general statements on human rights that did not touch on specific and importanrt human rights clauses for freedom of expression, privacy, etc. In addition, the final document contained limited wording against mass surveillance although the Brazillian president’s UN speech denouncing mass surveillance by the US had been one of the main stimulants behind the current meeting and demands that mass surveillance and surveillance of the telecommunications network in general be banned had been one of the important issues that had been proposed for the meeting. Despite the above limitations, we believe that this declaration is the result of a successful experiment, providing a cornerstone model for making the Internet public policy decision-making processes to be more transparent, democratic, and cooperative by allowing the participation of various players. The shortcomings that were revealed during this meeting should be amended and improved through future fora flexibly for discussing Internet governance such as the IGF. *The South Korean government recognizes the need for a system of multistakeholder participation at the national level.* The multistakeholder approach was identified as one of the most important principles at the national as well as the global level during this meeting. It was observed that Brazil was able to take on the role of being the host of this meeting because of their domestic multistakeholder Internet policy body, the CGI.br, and members of this organization played principal roles in organizing and administering the details of this meeting. In addition, the culmination of one of the achievements of CGI.br that was reached through a bottom-up process was proudly displayed to the global community when the Brazilian president signed the national Marco Civil during the opening ceremony of NETmundial. The South Korean government also publicly declared support for the Multistakeholder model in their contributing statement prior to the meeting as well as in the statements made by the governmental representatives during this meeting. We praise this stance of the Korean government as acknowledging the necessity for the existance of a multistakeholder participatory policy body on Internet governance, in line with the recommendations of the Sao Paulo declaration. Thus, we would like to suggest that we begin collaborative discussions on the formation of a domestic multistakeholder Internet governance body similar to CGI.br. As major representatives of the South Korean civil society, we would like to express our support for the democratic multistakeholder process that was proposed in NETmundial and declare our committment to achieving this goal not only at the global level but also at the domestic level, in cooperation with the various stakeholders. *Thanks, Edward Snowden* The breaches on human rights through mass surveillance by many governments that were exposed as a result of Edward Snowden’s revelations caused a huge outrage among the global Internet users. The denouncement of such activities by global Internet users provided the impetus for this meeting in Brazil. We believe that Snowden has enabled the activities of ordinary Internet users around us - those that exist peacefully on the Internet, living, loving, working and dedicating their individual expertise - to be recognized as major sources behind the creation of an Internet based on protecting human rights and contributing to a global, resilient, trustworthy, open and flexible Internet. In this regard, the civil society of Korea would like to express our deep appreciation to the courage of Edward Snowden for inspiring such discussions. We hope Snowden gets back home safe. 2014. 4. 28. 경실련(CCEJ, Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice) 망중립성 이용자 포럼(Net Neutrality User Forum) 오픈넷 (Opennet) 진보네트워크센터(Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet) 프라이버시 워킹그룹(Privacy Working Group Korea) 함께하는시민행동 (Citizens’ Action Network) *Reference* The Multistakeholders’ Decaration of Sao Paulo http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/ The Korean Civil Society statement submitted to NETmundial http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/korean-civil-society-submission-for-netmundial/146 The South Government statement submitted to NETmundial http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-korean-government-s-submission-for-netmundial/255 Nnenna Nwakanma speech https://bestbits.net/nnenna-netmundial/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 1 20:54:01 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 06:24:01 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <21EC9945-0CF8-4E7E-9D25-F9A36D42D5BD@hserus.net> I agree. The community can't both alienate all other stakeholders AND ask that those other stakeholders cooperate. Everybody coming to the table, and with table stakes of some sort to contribute to this effort, is essential, --srs (iPad) > On 02-May-2014, at 2:04, Babatope Soremi wrote: > > Hi all > An ecosystem depends on all its parts for the good of all in a sustainable manner. > > The onus is on CS to keep engaging & talking on these issues without walking away. Knowing certain stakeholders & vested interest, the goal is to show that by collaboratively working to agree on thorny issues like right to privacy, security, FoE et al everyone truly benefits. > > Walking away from the process only means we all are 'poorer' > > > On 1 May 2014 21:09, "Stephanie Perrin wro > > Exactly! > > SP > > On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > >> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Cheers! > >> > >> > >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >>> > >>> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. > >>> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Stephanie > >>> > >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks for your answer and interest, > >>>> > >>>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? > >>>> > >>>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? > >>>> > >>>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. > >>>> > >>>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. > >>>> > >>>> JC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. > >>>>> Stephanie Perrin > >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 > >>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... > >>>>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. > >>>>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? > >>>>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over > >>>>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. > >>>>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? > >>>>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective > >>>>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. > >>>>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. > >>>>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> JC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Post-scriptum: > >>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> JC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models > >>>>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a > >>>>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such > >>>>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to > >>>>>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding > >>>>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in > >>>>>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan > >>>>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out > >>>>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform > >>>>>>>> that we've just very successfully created. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> /John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Seun Ojedeji, > >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti > >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 > >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>> > >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri May 2 02:03:35 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 08:03:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 Message-ID: <53633537.60708@acm.org> Hi, It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of fundamental disagreement: - This is marvelous work that should become a living document - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and needs further discussion. The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: - among governments - among all stakeholders. One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments and a new body wherein those discussions can be held - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some point in day 3. As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with some some arguing: - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and there seem to be some such points - we should discuss the various oppositional models. At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only accepting certain text because they expected a document that would include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the points they had just accepted. We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" - a chair's report - a WG group Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven discussions are in todays' world. Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that underlay our discussions. avri PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can correct or amplify this quick report. -------------- next part -------------- Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Wednesday, 30 April 2014 Geneva, Switzerland >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I'm really happy to see that there's still some interest. Before we start the meeting, I have some administrative announcements. So everyone is requested to put his name or her name on a sheet, a participation list which is, I think, at the entrance, eventually with the email address. I can see -- and there's no need to repeat -- that members are sitting in the middle and observers at the sides. There are printouts of documents which are available also at the entrance. And the next one is, the secretariat has created the Google Doc site to put updated versions of the documents, and it will be shared amongst us. So those who are members of either the working group or the correspondence group are fine, and those observers who would like to have access, you're kindly requested to put down your email in order to be able for the secretariat to share the document with you. And I think basically that's the administrative part, so without much ado, I start my introductory remarks. First of all, I would like to apologize to you for the uncertainty of the time. We have discussed during last meeting about the time of this meeting and there was some kind of hesitation, and basically the reason we had to move the meeting to this date was the upcoming meeting of the CSTD itself, and this is simply for that reason we had to change it, in order that we can feed into the CSTD session. And the document should be considered whatever the output document will be from this meeting. We had to have some time to process it. So I plan to have this meeting as a three-day meeting, but we are going to go into details later on. Can I have the next slide, please. So as usual, I would like to read out the mandate we have according to the resolution of the U.N. in 2012. The resolution invites the chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation through seeking, compiling, and reviewing inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders, and to make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate. We have to report to the CSTD in 2014, and our mandate has been reiterated in the resolution of last year of the U.N. General Assembly. Next one. So this is basically the process we are in. The resolution which was taken in 2012 created the working group. We had the inputs from the stakeholders. We started the evaluation, and hopefully we are going to complete the evaluation this time and it will go to the CSTD. Hopefully the CSTD will approve the documents we are going to submit, and it will be taken forward to the ECOSOC and finally to the General Assembly. I would like to remind everyone -- probably you know it as well as I do -- that we are feeding into the WSIS+10 process, and our meeting and our results are very important in this respect. The working modalities I think are clear. We are not going to change them. So we are -- we will be in compliance with the mandate. We have a multistakeholder approach and hopefully we have a mutual trust. We tried to achieve results based on consensus. We have observers who are here according to the ECOSOC rules, and we had the agreement of the working group that, yes, observers can follow our meeting. And of course we have the time constraints, we have the resources constraints, and the venues. All of these are known. And of course we are sharing all the information with the stakeholders. That is, the documents are public, or most of the time we make them public, in case they are in a state that they can be made public. Next one. So we had our first meeting last May. Oh, my goodness, it was a year ago. Whew! As if it were yesterday. A second one was in November. The third one was last February. And this is our fourth one, and hopefully we are going to have the recommendations and the report of the working group, and I believe I'm going to present the report and the recommendations to the 17th session of the CSTD, which is going to be from the 12th to the 16th of May here in the U.N. So just a reminder. Our first meeting, we had a very good collaboration of the participants. We decided the procedural issues. We had two breakout groups, led by Brazil and India. We identified categories for the suggested questions and we identify- -- we finalized the questionnaire based on the results of these breakout groups. Already at that time we had remote participation and audio streaming, and we decided on the next steps. On the second meeting, we discussed the responses to the questionnaire, and there was a summary of the responses which were grouped into five groups. We started with the submission of draft recommendations and there was a discussion about the structure of the report. In the second meeting, we created the correspondence group for the mapping of the existing mechanisms to internal -- international forums. At that time, we had -- in addition to remote participation streaming, we had captioning and transcripts. And once again, I have to underline the excellent collaboration of the participants. So we had our third meeting last February and we discussed draft recommendations in Group A, C, and part of D. We had proposals for the structure of the report. We had a report from the correspondence group for the mapping of existing mechanisms to international forums. And we have to be honest. There was a big, big divergence of opinions. So that's why I suggested to have our fourth meeting, with the hope that in the meantime in other fora such as NETmundial, WSIS+10 meeting, and the ITU -- and at that time, I still hoped that in the U.N. General Assembly -- consultation will lead to some result, but I understand that it's still going on. So -- and with the hope that we are going to have some positive inputs or impulses on our process, we are going to achieve some results. And I think -- I've been following the NETmundial remotely, and probably most of you or all of you have the outcome document of the NETmundial. We can say that it was a very good meeting and I think we are going to have some statement from Brazil about it. Personally, I think it is a good example for us, and in the final document of the NETmundial, there is a paragraph about the hopes of the stakeholders about our work, about the outcome of our work. So it has been emphasized that it is very significant work we are doing here. Next one. Well, probably we can skip that. For the fourth meeting, we have the following resources. The documents we had have been grouped into four documents. We have statements. I asked participants to separate recommendations from statements, so this has been done. We have a document with agreed recommendations, or agreed recommendation. We have a document with recommendations to be revisited. And finally, we have a document where we had no agreement. Next one. We have also the correspondence group's input. We are going to hear a report from the chair of the correspondence group tomorrow. And we have the compilation of the contributions. If I'm not mistaken, we have a printout form which can be collected at the entrance of the room. And in addition to that, we have the transcripts of the previous meetings and you have the Web page for this meeting. Oh, by the way, the presentation will be made available on the Web site, so in case you lose some information, you can always retrieve. Next one. So what are the resources in addition to what I said? Well, we agreed on the structure of the report. There were ongoing discussions and finally we agreed on the following structure of the report. There will be an introductory part. In the second part, we are going to have a description of the meetings and the methodology. And the bulk of the report will be about the operationalizing -- whatever -- enhanced cooperation recommendations for the five groups. And you have the five groups. A, implementation of the Tunis Agenda; B, public policy issues and possible mechanisms; C, role of the stakeholders; D, developing countries; E, barriers for participation in enhanced cooperation; and finally, conclusion. So at least we have the structure, and right now we have to work on the recommendations. Next one. In addition to these resources, I would like to have some short statement or report about other events. First of all, the transition of the NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions, and eventually if the U.S. could give us some very short statement about it. NETmundial. I would like to have some information about the event itself eventually from Brazil. And the WSIS+10 MPP, where we are with that. I understand that it is going well and we are going to have another meeting before the summit, or before the final meeting. And last, but not least, about the IGF preparations for the 9th IGF in Istanbul. So these are the other information which have impact on our work, so I would like to have this information. So how we are going to organize the meeting. Well, first of all, naturally we have to agree on the agenda and the time management. I suggest that we continue with a discussion of the remaining topics in Groups D and E, with the objective to propose recommendations. I would like to have a report from the chair of the correspondence group and have a discussion about the document of the correspondence group which I would call a living document. And after that, I would hike to go back and I would like to revisit recommendations which we said we would be revisiting in Group A and C. In the very unlikely case of diverging opinions -- and if I look at you, I can see that it's very unlikely, because we are going to agree on most of the things, but in case, it has been expressed that eventually opinions should be included in the report. I would like to ask delegations of so-called like-minded groups to formulate these opinions, in case it's needed, and it will be annexed to the report. So we have substantial work to do. We have to do the drafting and we have to finalize the recommendations, and last, but not least, we have to have a consolidated report which I can present to the CSTD basically 10 days from now. Next one. So I would like to ask you to concentrate on substantive discussions. So probably I -- We know each other quite well. We know our opinions quite well and we know our point of views, so I don't really think that it's needed to state again the same statements we had before. We should find ways of understanding and consensus. So basically, I really want to concentrate on the recommendations rather than on statements. So in the report, as I mentioned, we are going to give a factual description of the meetings, we had the accepted structure, and we are going to reflect the agreements, and naturally, as I said, annex the opinions in case of disagreement. Next one. The suggested time management. I suggest the same time management as we had before. That is, from 10:00 to 1:00, we have the morning session. We are going to have an observers' segment before coffee break, a 15 minutes coffee break preceded by this observers' segment. In case you think we should start earlier, I am ready to start earlier. Whether it be half an hour or one hour earlier, it is up to you. We are going to have the lunch break from 1:00 to 3:00. And in the afternoon, we're going to work in a similar way as we work in the morning. That is, from 3:00 to 6:00, and with the 15 minutes observers' segment and 15 minutes coffee break. And once again, if you think that we should work a bit later, we can do it. I'm ready to do it. Next one. So let me call your attention again to our role. We contribute to the WSIS process, recommending ways and means of cooperation. We know the importance of the complexity of the issues and our tasks, and we seek points of agreement and compromise. And of course, as I can see, we are motivated, ambitious, and realistic. Okay. So after that, I think the following point is the agenda has been posted on the Web site. Basically, it's almost the same as we had before. Are there any observations that we can follow our work in the same way? I can see no -- Yes, Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, colleagues. We do have an observation on the third item. I mean, there is lots of events happening around us. We should focus on our mandate, not to be, I mean, confused by other events or divert in our way of work, but just focus on the mandate. We do have a mandate in here. Others are doing things according to their mandates, so it's kind of parallel or separate issues between each event. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. That exactly was my intent. I want to emphasize that we want to have information, nothing else. It's just to have some information what has happened around us and how we are going to feed into the WSIS+10 process. It is not going to influence directly our work. Naturally indirectly, of course, it will. But that is exactly my intent. And I underline it's information. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you. Good morning to everybody. I hope everybody is well. Yes, nobody is against the dissemination of the information. The document that you refer to, NETmundial, is on the Web site, is on the table. Thank you very much, and kindly the Secretariat made it available for those who like me lazy to go to the Web site. Very good. And that's that. So we don't need to refer to that because that is a different event of a different basis, different background, different views, and so on so forth. So it is better you concentrate the time that you mentioned on the issue before you. Otherwise you may run the risk of unnecessary discussions. So thank you very much for the -- for the submission or provision of document on the table. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. As I mentioned, I want to have as information and probably the group will take note of that and that's it. Avri, you wanted to -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to sort of offer a -- other view on this and sort of say that we really can't ignore what is going on in global discussions that included governments on the same topic. So I understand the desire to ignore what has happened in the intervening time, but I really do not believe that we can afford to, otherwise we work in a vacuum really and I do not believe that we can afford to do so. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair, and very good morning to everyone in the room. And welcome back to Geneva for all of those who are coming from outside. At the outset, Mr. Chair, I would like to make two submissions. I think there are definitely significant developments taking place on the overall Internet governance per se and I think it's important we all in our diligent capacities must take note of those developments. There are no two words about it. Then secondly, given the time and type of mandate we have been given in this working group, those acknowledgments can come to our interventions rather than being presented as part of this working group process. Our specific mandate is slightly one dimension of Internet governance. If we try to stretch ourselves too much, assuming that there are implications coming out of various other processes, then we might lose focus and we might be, as you rightly observed in the beginning, the time is not at our disposal. So we would like to be really restraining ourselves in seeing what is relevant to this particular working group, and I tend to see the caution that is being advised by some of the colleagues in the room, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think that is particularly important. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. As I told you, I have no intent to take on any discussion what has happened in other meetings. Just factual information, what was the outcome and then two, three minutes by the (indiscernible) country. Kavouss. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: I wonder if there is a representative of the Brazilian government here. Yeah, there is. Okay. I think it would be interesting to hear him to have a basic information that you are requesting about NETmundial. And I can give some comments, maybe after, could make a statement, is my suggestion. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. I can sense and it's -- I tend to agree with that, probably we shouldn't have a detailed discussion about what has happened in other forums and we should just have some information about it and take note of that and carry on with our work. That is my aim. Probably I didn't express myself clearly, but I understand this is the wish of some other members of the group and I tend to agree with that. Simply we have this kind of information during our last meeting. I don't intend to go beyond that. I just want to have some factual information, what has happened and that's it. And in the same way I would like to have some information about the WSIS+10 meeting in the ITU, about the ITU process, and eventually the NTIA process, which does have some affect on our work. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman, and good morning to our colleagues. We have now spent eight minutes discussing whether or not we would allow our visiting colleague to make a few remarks regarding the Sao Paulo meeting, and according to our agenda five minutes were set out for such a briefing. I think it's worth reflecting upon. Thank you, Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Very practical remark. Thank you. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm one of the business participants. I would like to support the idea of brief informational statements which are not discussed but are available to all of us. I think as someone who is participating in the WSIS+10 and also in the Istanbul IGF I'm aware -- I was able to attend NETmundial, not everyone was able to. I think short reports from all of the parties that you suggested without discussion will help us then to move forward, and I welcome Mr. Reddy's suggestion that then any other statements that we make can take place during our -- our individual interventions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. U.S. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would agree particularly with that final comment that as our distinguished Indian colleague said that we should not turn this into a debate on that forum and that any other comments would be woven into the discussion, but we would welcome a short factual briefing on this as we -- we would not disagree with those who say that this group has its own mandate but we all know that that mandate does not take place in isolation and when other significant and related events are going on we would welcome hearing a short briefing on them. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Victoria. >>VICTORIA ROMERO: Thank you, Chair. Good morning to everybody, and my affiliation to support your proposal of having a briefing on NETmundial and would support also what has been presented by other delegations. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Can I ask Brazil to give us a three minutes presentation because we have (indiscernible) meeting. Go ahead. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I would like to thank for this opportunity to brief on NETmundial. The event was highly successful in drawing attention to the importance of the Internet governance and its future and hopefully it will provide some inputs to move forward the work of the WGEC. Many had recognized that NETmundial in terms of procedure and substance fully respected the multistakeholder principle. There was a fairly balanced presence of the various stakeholders. Of the total participants representing over 90 countries, 19% were from government, 20% from the private sector, 20% from academic and technical communities, and 22% from the Civil Society. It is worth emphasizing the transparency in the process of elaboration and review of the final document. Both in the preparatory stages and in the course of the event. From our viewpoint the NETmundial multistakeholder statement gains legitimacy in the eyes of the international community since it resulted from an effort that involved the full participation of all stakeholders. As to its substance, the statement may represent an important contribution to advancing international discussions on Internet governance as it established a set of universal principles to guide such discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to give a very short, succinct statement. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Basically that's what we wanted to hear. I believe we can move forward and I would like to have some -- Iran, you wanted to take -- it's okay. Can I have some briefing about the WSIS+10, where we are with that. >>Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to all delegates. It's my pleasure to update you on the interpretive process of the WSIS+10 high level event and there are only 40 days remaining to the high level event which will be held of the 10-15 of June in Geneva. And the preparatory process also already approaches its end. We held just from the 14-17 of April the fourth physical meeting which concluded. We've come to conclusions on a few chapters of the two outcome documents, meaning the statement and our vision. So in the statement, most of the text has been agreed. The annex is going to be still under discussion and the Switzerland has been requested to facilitate the consensus building on the listing of the human rights regulated resolutions. On the vision, unfortunately due to the time constraints we didn't arrive to the end of the reading and the chapters on the action lines and on the measurements has been postponed to be addressed during the fifth physical meeting. And the Chairman, together with the vice chairs and in cooperation with the action line facilitators and the focal point has been requested to propose the possible text, concise text for those chapters to make this possible during the next meeting. Next meeting has been reconfirmed to be held from the 28 to 31 of May, so four-days meeting, and it's my pleasure to reconfirm also the commitment of the WIPO to have this meeting. So as we got direct confirmation of this just today and the registration is open from today for this meeting. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, (indiscernible). Iran, you want to make some comment? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm seeking a point of clarification. Did we agree on the agenda? >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think I -- I asked the question if you have observation concerning the agenda, and I could see no -- yes, I did. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of the colleagues in the room made the reservation or observation on some matters in the agenda, and I think it's better to, I mean, go ahead with their concerns on the matter, that's the first issue. Second, Mr. Chairman, if we are really going to hear the briefings on the meetings we had, which is related to the subject of our meeting, it's better to change the agenda. Instead of having NETmundial briefing, we can put another language which is referring to the old -- to the old meeting and in general. Not to recognize just one out of all and to hear the briefing of all meetings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Jafar, I'm very sorry. Probably it's my mistake. I should have enumerated that I wanted to, as we did last time, to hear from WSIS+10 and IGF. That's what we did last time and there was no problem with it, so that is my intention as well. There's no other thing I want to do. Can we go further? I just want to hear two words about the IGF, upcoming IGF, and then we can continue with our substantive work. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think we have no difficulty with the way that was presented, but not on the agenda NETmundial briefing. In the agenda you have introductory remarks and the page, the information provided to us under introductory remark without referring to any particular meeting in the agenda. Introductory remark refers to many things and then also we were very happy, very happy to hear from the host of the meeting in the introductory remark under a general agenda item which is exactly in line but not refer to it because if you refer to the meeting, there are pros and cons and we have to go to the discussions and we may not be finishing our work. So let us just minimize that introductory remark. So in your agenda if you want to approve the agenda, the first item is that remark by you and then the second item is discussion on the proposals and so on, so forth after the approval of the agenda. But we don't want to put this item because there are many issues that we have to mention. We may or may not agree with several things. So let us not to have that discussion and that is the first one. If you want to go to the agenda, approval of agenda. Otherwise we would have difficulty with that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is not clear to me now, you suggest that it would be part of the introductory remarks that we are having now, this is some briefing even, that's your suggestion, without pointing out the meetings. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Chair, I fear I was not clear. In the introductory remark there would be information about the meeting by the host of the meeting. That's all. We have no problem. We respect our distinguished colleagues from the Brazilian government administration and they are free like any of us to give any information that they wish. But under introductory remarks. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So probably we shall strike that from the agenda and we don't spell it out. Okay. Having said that, can we have within the introductory remark some information about the IGF. >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Chair. The Istanbul IGF is still on board for 2-5 September, 2014. In case I didn't say what the main theme was last time, it is Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance. And during our last term Open Consultations we agreed on eight sub-themes which were policies enabling access, content creation, dissemination, and use, the Internet as engine for growth and development, fourth was IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem. Fifth, enhancing digital trust. Six, Internet and human rights. Seventh was critical Internet resources, and eight, emerging issues. We also issued a call for workshop proposals and we received 210 workshop proposals, and at the present moment the MAG is going through them to evaluate them and we have to choose roughly 79 of those, which we'll do in the May Open Consultations which are going to be held in Paris on the 19-21 of May. There's also the call for open forums which we invite organizations and countries who have -- who want to showcase their Internet governance activities offered up here to apply for an open forum which is one and a half hour slot during the Istanbul IGF. Thank you. That's it. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Chengetai. The 210 workshops, you are going to kill me. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: And I think most of the MAG members. I'm a bit worried. Okay. So after this briefing, I think can we go to the discussion of our -- Just one procedural remark. I would like to ask each delegation to designate one member to take the floor during a session. So Jafar, you can take the floor, of course, but so what I mean during a session, if you have the morning session, just one member. Okay. Jafar, go ahead. >>JAFAR BARMAKI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately it's not possible with our delegation because there are some issues that I have to cover and some by Mr. Arasteh. The point I wanted to raise is that since we heard from the latest developments on the matter, on the subject matter we are going to discuss in our working group, we will be very happy to hear from the -- also what has happened in the U.N. General Assembly with -- to -- assisted by the -- I mean, on the issue that I finish in Tunis and (indiscernible) ambassadors. That will be very useful if we hear the latest developments on that (indiscernible). Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. That's a very good point. It's a very important point as well. I wonder if someone can brief us about it because I have no firsthand information. My information is that negotiations are still going on, consultations are still going on. What I read as the last document, there was a proposal to have a two-day meeting during the General Assembly, but if someone has more accurate information, the secretariat might brief us about it, if you have some more information. I -- personally, I don't have more information about that. >>ANNE MIROUX: No. Definitely we don't have more detailed information than the one that you just mentioned. We have been in contact with the ambassador of Tunisia to the United Nations in New York as well as to the ambassador of Finland, and just for your information, the ambassador of Tunisia to the U.N. in New York is expected, actually, to participate in the CSTD, and it's a special day of the CSTD devoted to the WSIS follow-up. That is on the 14th of May. He will either come to Geneva for the CSTD or we will have a video session with him. But as of now, I think the only thing that we can say is that negotiations are still going on. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Anne. Well, I really appreciate your question because it's very, very important in the whole process and the way we are going to contribute to the process itself. So after that, we can go to the substantive part. You agree to that, that we go according to the points I have put out in the agenda. So what I suggest now is to start discussing proposals in Topic D. That is, developing countries, Questions 10 and 15, which we haven't discussed up to now. And you have the document, and without further ado, I would like to ask the proponent of the recommendations to give us short introductory remarks about the recommendations. So the first one is Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the colleagues. I'd like to make a brief explanation about our proposal. To implement enhanced cooperation and to make developing countries can play an important role in the Internet-related public policy issues, Japan considers that the international cooperation such as capacity-building, technical cooperation, best practice sharing is necessary in the field of developing ICT infrastructure, promoting ICT utilization and the application and ensuring a stable and secure functioning of the Internet. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. In the meantime, I realized that India asked for the floor before your intervention. Please, India. I'm absolutely sorry. You are too close to me. >>INDIA: No. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I would not like to interrupt the floor at this point in time since you opened discussion on Group D, but at some stage, Mr. Chair, we need to reflect on the overall outcome that we are looking of this fourth session, fourth meeting of this working group, because we have some comments to make on that procedure. At some stage during the course of this morning session, if you will give us an opportunity to speak on that, because eventually that would be critical in moving forward and coming up with recommendation, stroke opinions, stroke report. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Getting back to Japan, so I open the floor for discussion about the proposal from Japan. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: thank you, Chairman. I have a general proposal with respect to the output of this meeting to the CSTD or to whatever you go. First of all, the number of recommendations should be minimum necessary. Try to avoid having multiple recommendations either overlapping or not necessary. So make it minimum necessary. That is number one. Number two, recommendations should be coherent and relevant to the subject and should avoid having nice empty words. "Sustainable," "cooperation," "collaboration," "enhancement," all of these things are something that's very nice but very difficult to understand. Thirdly, it must be implementable, workable, and practical. Something which is not implementable is not possible to say. To give one example, I go to the introductory part of Recommendation 1: "Endeavor to implement international cooperation." Why we endeavor? Why we do not go to the international cooperation? We just endeavor to have international -- implementing international cooperation? How we implement international cooperation? Is the subject of international cooperation implementation a subject of the enhanced cooperation? And then talking of the formulating ICT market, developing ICT infrastructure, we are not talking about ICT market here. This is not our subject. It is elsewhere. "To achieve sustainable development through the Internet." This is also not Internet governance. So there are so many things in this recommendation by our distinguished colleagues which might be good but not relevant to these subjects and not appropriate and would not take us anywhere. This is some combination of words, each of which might have a meaning. Putting them together does not have any meaning at all. And moreover, it is not relevant to the subject. So this is the situation. And as I mentioned, anything we say, we should have the implementation. We come later on to say something like "bottom-up process." We have to -- how we do the bottom-up process. I will give one example, not to go to the Japanese proposal, but there is no way how to implement all of these things. So I think that it is -- sometimes we will not be (indiscernible) at all. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the role of developing countries is, in fact, one of the public policy issues which is reflected in our recommendation under Section B. I mean, we should look and draft a recommendation under this group how we enable developing countries, I mean, to focus on the development of international public policy issues, how we can write a recommendation that will fully implement enhanced cooperation that will enable developing countries to work together with others in implementing enhanced cooperation. By reading this and comparing this to 69, I do not know how we will fully implement 69 with this recommendation. Here we speak about market, ICT infrastructure, where the essence of 69 is enabling government on equal footing to develop international public policy issues regarding Internet. I don't see this recommendation as taking us further steps to achieve 69. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. We would like to express our support for this recommendation. We think it sends an important message, an important signal, about something that could be -- some things that we could do that could be helpful for developing countries to build capacity, so we support this recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Let me see if I could offer a -- what I hope might be a friendly amendment but maintain the spirit of the -- and the purpose of this recommendation. I think that recognizing that we may have different views about how to implement enhanced cooperation, still I think everyone in the room has devoted a lot of time to supporting the idea that our recommendations should advance the availability of the Internet and the capacity-building to strengthen the participation of developing countries. So I might propose replacing the words "formulating the ICT market" with "in areas" -- and just saying, instead, "in areas such as social and economic growth and development," which does not make a reference to markets but does make a reference to the importance of the growth of economic opportunity. In particular, in developing countries. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I do agree with the word "endeavor." I think it is sufficient to say "implement." So that is something. I do think, however, that this does contribute to the implementation of 69 in the context of 67 through 72, the broader context of 69, which we have spoken of and emphasized frequently in here. So I think that this is actually a very useful recommendation and I do believe that the terms within it are, indeed, understood within the context of Internet governance. We certainly could get into philosophical linguistic detail of exactly how one would define "bottom-up," and we probably have as many definitions of "bottom-up" as we have of "democracy" in the room. So therefore, I would say that this is an understandable statement, and within the context of 67 through 72, it does -- and 69 within that context -- it does indeed enhance cooperation of states among all stakeholders. So I would very much support this statement. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Russia. >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you. Actually, I don't understand the -- the sequences of the -- this recommendation. It looks like that developing countries should first make their capacity-building to agree to the infrastructure, promote, utilize, make the secure function of Internet, and only then we'll be able to come up with Internet-related public policy issues. I do not understand the sequence of that. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any other -- India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Just to -- we also tend to see a big challenge in -- one is the sequence of ideas that have been put together. Number two, if we are making a recommendation, I think it's a matter -- it's a kind of a statement that you are making. It is not -- doesn't look like as a recommendation. A recommendation would actually, as some colleagues have mentioned earlier, that it is adding value to what is already going on, number two, and there is certain actionable points that comes out of the recommendation. So from both -- from these two tests, I think this particular paragraph, we can work on this, if you -- if you permit us to, but it has too many ideas contained in the same place. I think we have a challenge in accepting it as a recommendation. I have no problem -- we agree with the sentence. The entire paragraph we agree with. But to be presented as a recommendation for global community, particularly in this case member states who would be coming first and then others who -- other stakeholders who want to take up lead from this, I'm afraid that there are challenges. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Very useful. Well, probably my gratitude is going to be expressed if I ask you to move this recommendation -- or this statement into a recommendation phase, and I would like to ask other stakeholders to, during the lunch break, come together and work on it about the sequence, about the implementation of 69, about the implementation of all of this. So I could hear different opinions. I could hear that there is value. So I really encourage you to work on that. So if, Mr. Reddy, you are willing to move it forward a bit, I would be extremely grateful. Of course Japan, I would like to ask you. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Avri, if you are willing to participate. Marilyn. Russia. Please do sit down and make this recommendation. I think we can work on that. So having said that, let's move to the next one. This is a recommendation in draft which has been submitted by a group of stakeholders. Avri, if you can present this. >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly, Mr. Chair. Basically, should I go through the whole group or just per bullet? How would you prefer that this one be done? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can you repeat? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Do you want me to just do it per bullet or do you want me to go through the whole thing? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Go through the whole set. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. So this is basically a set where we start out with the recommendation that no new multistakeholder -- multilateral arrangements are required to support enhanced cooperation in developing countries. This builds on the ones that are future. So it encourages the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand Internet governance and to make public policy in light of and taking into account its multistakeholder nature. Because there are many already existing efforts of all sorts, and what we're saying is to look at these, to look how they apply to Internet governance in its multistakeholder nature and take them forward. We encourage -- it encourages the U.N. and global Internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation, engagement of stakeholders from developing countries, in the perspective of ensuring that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of Internet policy globally. One of the things that we certainly have noticed in Internet governance, in multistakeholder, and have even seen it in the multilateral efforts of the past, is that developing countries do not necessarily have the same level of leadership and of ability to participate, and largely that is because of financial reasons. We've seen that often. One of the good things about NETmundial is that it's shown us that the money is out there to do stuff, so we really just need to make a recommendation that that money be applied to developing economies for multistakeholder processes. Encourage governments of developing countries to foster engagement with Internet governance issues at the national and regional levels. Basically, making the point that Internet governance, multistakeholder Internet governance, is not purely an international issue, it is a regional and national issue, and that if we expect Internet governance to be a consistent body, to contribute to an Internet ecosystem, it really needs to occur from the local to the international level. And enable developing countries, including both governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing mechanisms at national and regional levels and by democratization at all levels, including the local -- I mean, including the global level. Excuse me for stumbling while I'm reading my own words. So basically, it's a set of recommendations that, taken individually and together, basically look to strengthen developing countries from the most local to the global for full participation of developing economy stakeholders. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Any comments? India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to give three or four submissions in respect to this recommendation. While I think it is a belief which I think we would like to -- which in our view would like to disabuse of this belief that this multistakeholderism and multi-literalism are -- it's a (indiscernible) game you're talking about. Hence, there are recommendations made often that there's no need for multi-lateral arrangements or mechanisms when we talk about Internet governance. I think in our view, they have respective places. It is primarily because there are a number of international public policy issues relating to Internet which require close and very careful attention of the governments, partly because and largely also, that governments are committing the populations, entire citizenry in their countries, to the use of Internet as a medium for communications, to public policy implementation, and a number of other issues, to the extent that the core assets of a country are now using Internet as a medium and we perhaps would be short-sighted in our approach in this working group if we want to believe that governments have no role and thereby there is no need for any multi-lateral mechanisms or arrangements to look at this very important dimension which in many countries declared it as part of the national security dimension. That's the first submission I want to make. And secondly, while I do agree that largely the problem is the financial aspects, many countries, developing countries, do not have the financial resources to be able to not only commit their own populations, people in the country, but also as a government be able to actively participate in this Internet governance led issues. But I think they cannot be all -- they have their importance. We acknowledge that. And I think for this -- largely this has to be addressed domestically. I don't think international cooperation alone is going to find solutions. So we would like to place them in the respective positions. Thirdly, on one hand we want to encourage countries to have Internet governance at the national and the regional level but when it comes to international level we want to be silent about it. Do we know why we are trying to reach that -- move in that direction? And for the reasons which I mentioned a little while ago. So from that point of view, Mr. Chair, we cannot agree with recommendation number 1, and we are looking -- willing to look at other parts of the recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. I'm not surprised. So I can hear from your words that there are parts or some points that you can agree on or you think they can be taken into consideration. Avri, you'd like to take the floor? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one clarification. The recommendation does not say that no multi-lateral arrangements are required. Many multi-lateral arrangements already exist. What we are saying is that no new ones are required. Certainly, you know, we're not advocating the dissolution of current multi-lateral arrangements, of which there are more than I could possibly count. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri, for the clarification. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, our distinguished colleague Mr. Reddy just said what I mean -- come up to say so recommendation bullet 1 and bullet 2, it is very hard for us to accept. We can work with us to focus on the international effort. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. Just to be clear, unfortunately I personally will not be available during the lunch break, I have some medical arrangements. However, maybe now -- recommendation 1, if it is to be redrafted, it should point to what enhanced cooperation for the implementation of public policy issues but not marketing. We don't want to have enhanced cooperation for marketing and the development of the market, development of (indiscernible) and so on and so forth. That is actually line C2 and (indiscernible) is not here. Now comment number 2, I just comment thanks to the writer or author of that, even new multi-lateral arrangement, who could say that is not necessary? Who -- who dare to say that it stop here. No more. No thinking to that nation? What is there is sufficient? Who could say that? What is developing, the day is changing, the time is changing, there might be new arrangements. Who could say that no new multi-lateral arrangement? There might be many others. It is totally irrelevant and inappropriate to claim that whatever is there is perfect. There is no perfection anywhere at all. The only perfect is God, that's all. Now, comment to two issues, encourage governments for national, encourage governments for national -- bullet number 2 and 3 at the end. I think they are towing the monkey to the shoulder of developing countries. We came like many others to enhanced cooperation for the public policy issue. They say no, no, no, nothing is required. Do it yourself. You have problem with your national level, go and try do that and -- that is towing the monkey to the shoulder of others. This is also not the purpose of them. Then there are many other things unclear. Encourage the effort of various interesting mechanisms to understand. Who is going to tell these people that how this mechanism is working, saying that you don't understand it and we want to make it understandable to you, who has that knowledge to make it understandable to the existing mechanism how the Internet governance is working and what is Internet governance? What is Internet governance? I don't know. ICANN governance? IANA governance? What is this governance? It's nothing. All of these things are worth -- and to encourage you -- we want to encourage you and to give financial support to the developing countries. There might be other areas to do that. There might be other entities to do that. So we are totally deflecting and departing from the main point. I am very sorry, this is my view. Going to the IGF arrangement, widening and widening and widening to get nowhere. In order to make people totally lost. Open the issue as much as possible then they will be totally lost in the middle of nowhere. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. I hope you can make it in the afternoon, if I'm mistaken. Avri, you want to answer? No. Okay. Phil. Parminder, I didn't forget about you. Sorry. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I think -- listening to the various interventions, I think there are some merits in the recommendations that have been submitted. I understand that the wording may not be necessarily correct, but I think the general thrust and overall intent of the recommendations, as presented in this grouping of five bullet points, are ones that are worthy of further consideration and merit. I think the general thrust of trying to minimize the activities that we have to undertake in this area of what Internet governance is going forward, and I take note of Mr. Arasteh's note about what is Internet governance. I mean, I think that's a reasonable question going forward and perhaps not one you would want to enter into a debate, but I think it's right and proper that we look at trying to minimize the overheads that we would all face in trying to take forward some activity to assist developing countries in participating in, to the greatest extent possible, the role that we might see for enhanced cooperation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair, and welcome all of you back to Geneva. I think we are now at the core of the issues which we need to sort out and again, going back to the observations which were made earlier, I think first we need to understand or accept or debate whether we need a mechanism for dealing with public policy issues around the Internet at the global level. That's the purpose. Multi-lateral or not, multistakeholder plus multi-lateral, et cetera, should come later. The first is the recognition whether there are gaps in public policy -- addressing public policy at the global level. And we need some policies, that's the mandate. In that regard, it would surprise me that essentially pretty strong preconceived notion or statement that no arrangement is needed, no arrangement is made at the global level. If you look at line 5, it says develop new mechanisms for Internet governance at national and regional levels. I miss the logic because if one would look at it, national level is much more natural in terms of all kind of policymaking, ministries, departments, and to say that no, you need something out there which develops some new mechanisms but not at the global level seems to be making the statement, justification behind which I'm not really clear. But it's good to come up with it. Also when I see representatives for Internet Governance Forum itself -- and we did agree that Internet governance is the government set of public policies and that's why you needed a platform to discuss them. We did not say that it is being discussed at WHO, intellectual property at WIPO or et cetera, so we don't need a convergent forum for discussion. We needed a convergent forum and we are already in (indiscernible) support. IGF -- but when we talk about addressing the same set of public policy issues we need a mechanism, it is not clear and I think to now go ahead, if we can add in point 5 before national and regional level at global national and regional level, we at least are symmetric in what we're trying to say and then see what we can do about the rest of the recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So anyone else? Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, thank you. First of all, to respond to one of the things I neglected to respond to before. Indeed Iran is correct. To presume such bravery as to say that nothing is ever necessary for the rest of time is indeed overly presumptuous of me. And indeed it would be reasonable to say that the statement that we're trying to make is that no new multi-lateral arrangements are required at this time. And so what we're saying is the recommendation is that we do not come out with a recommendation to create a new multi-lateral mechanism. What this excludes here -- and I think Parminder pointed that out -- is it says nothing about the absence of whether there's a need to create new multistakeholder mechanisms. I would argue -- and I'd have to talk to the others there -- that indeed what we're trying to say is whether it's WIPO, whether it's World Health Organization, that we have to interface with those organizations as opposed to creating new organization mechanisms, multi-lateral organizations, or even multistakeholder mechanisms at this time to do that. The absence has been seen at a regional level. It's too -- too -- so the set of recommendations does not want to bar new multistakeholder mechanisms, that's the gap analysis that's being done. But it also is not recommending those at this time. What it's saying is no new multi-lateral of governments only are needed for enhanced cooperation at this time is the statement that the first bullet is making. It is not precluding that the gap analysis and after work has been done with existing mechanisms one discovers that yes, a new multistakeholder mechanism is required, that it's not making that pre-determination. It's just saying it's not recommending it at this time. I hope that clarified it somewhat. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It's perfectly clarified to me. However, I think our recommendations should be in the way that what we should do, not what we should not do. So it should be proactive. I think, as you mentioned, you ought to go back to your group and discuss it with them and probably you'd like to take into account all of the remarks you've received from other members and I would like to encourage you to do that and come back to discussing this point again. Personally, I think there are merits. There are variable parts which can be, at some point, turned into recommendations. Probably needs further discussion. I have a feeling that Richard, you wanted to take the floor now? But this is the point I would like to give the opportunity to observers, in case they have observations. In case no? Yes. >> Mr. Chairman, my point is following one. Sorry, this is my first meeting so maybe I'm a bit rough, but we should all be aware that when we have these kind of stakeholder forums it's much more forums is a place to make decisions so we should not be expected to have the correct answers today because the agenda has already has been done, the agenda has already been set. The second thing, we all know that consensus is not -- it is about the whole process. Sometimes consensus is not the best way to take decision and sometimes consensus takes time. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, I can see no other observers. Oh, yeah. Yes, Nigel. >>NIGEL HICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you and good morning to fellow delegates. Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this meeting. On this particular -- on this particular approach I think it is, as I think has been said, an opportunity to have a fundamental discussion. No doubt we might have had it before. But I think if we're going to move forward with some of these recommendations we just need to discuss the application of public policy and how it's derived. And I think we should take note of the fact that public policy is being derived in a number of different fora, and as the proposer of this recommendation has recognized, some of those fora are of course multi-lateral, some of them are multistakeholder, and I think we need to recognize that in taking forward further discussions on these public policy issues that we need to involve as many stakeholders to bring wisdom to those discussions as possible. So I think there is indeed merit in discussing this and trying to agree to something that's acceptable to all parties as important. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigel. Anja. >>ANJA KOVACS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'm here from the Internet Democracy Project in India. I wanted to comment that I think the distinguished delegate from Iran saying that the reference to national and regional levels seem to kind of displace responsibility to developing countries for taking this forward rather than resolving it at the global level. And I think we look at that slightly differently in the sense that if you look for example in the wake of the Snowden revelations the U.S. government has a lot of critics for undermining trust in Internet governance. And I think whether governments make decisions unilaterally or in a multi-lateral process together. And if people are to have trust in those decisions, it is really important -- and I think the NETmundial also again made that clear -- that even multi-lateral processes are informed by multistakeholder processes and that there is an opportunity for wider debate around the decisions that ultimately will be made by governments. So I wouldn't read this as trying to displace that responsibility but as a recognition of the fact that it is important that this concept is developed in all countries so that decisions both multi-lateral or multistakeholder can benefit from that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Personally I think that, as I mentioned, that there's merit in the recommendations. We can work on these recommendations further with the hope of coming to some kind of agreement. As a first of my -- I recommend to you, Avri, to get together with the other proposed proponents and later on come back to us and brief us about the results and carry on with the discussion. Now, we are on time. So I recommend to have the -- India, if you want to make your statement now, you can do it or you feel like doing it after the coffee break? After coffee break? Okay. So let's have our 15-minute coffee break now. And when I say 15, I mean it. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think we had some technical problems, but they have been sorted out. I hope you had a good coffee, good conversations, and you are fresh to start. I have raised a question about starting earlier. Is it agreeable that we start at 9:00, with the notion that we are going to have the coffee break a bit earlier than which is put down in the agenda? Yes, Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it's okay to start at 9:00, but with the understanding that the two hours lunch break will be free for lunch. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yeah. I completely support this proposal. The two-hour lunch break is an absolute "must." Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Yeah. Happy to support that, Chair, and willing to sit down with my Saudi colleagues and work through lunch to assist them in any discussions we might have. >>CHAIR MAJOR: All right. Okay. Thank you. So that is the starting earlier in the morning. As to how we are going to finish in the evening is a different question, and it will -- we shall see what's going to happen this afternoon and we shall talk about it. Okay. So before the break, we discussed the -- a list of -- or a group of recommendations submitted by Avri. Let me turn to Avri and ask her if she managed to get in touch with the other proponents. >>AVRI DORIA: Briefly, but we have not had a chance to rework. We're going to sit down over the lunch, eat, and talk words. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Right. Okay. So you will come back to us in the afternoon. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I propose to move forward. So if I'm not mistaken, we have taken some initiatives to work over the lunch. There's the Japanese proposal, and I asked Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Japan naturally, to sit down, and those who are interested -- I think Marilyn was interested too -- to work on some text which is acceptable to all of us and which is implementable, which is not a negligible aspect. Okay. And I had the answer from Avri that she's going to come back after consultation and probably we should take on the discussion on these issues. Now, we have a draft recommendations from -- recommendations from Brazil, Mexico, Sweden, and U.K. Per, can I ask you to introduce the recommendations? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. If my colleagues from Mexico and Brazil and U.K. so allow me -- and I can't see them in the room so I guess I'll just go ahead, then -- so I think these are two recommendations that we put forward after discussions in our group during the last meeting or even maybe before that, and -- well, I think they are fairly straightforward. If you look at the first one, we are aware of that there are challenges for stakeholders, especially from developing countries, to participate in many of the discussions that are taking place. I think we could just look in the room here today and we will see that. And that has been pointed out before. So I think this recommendation sends a message about that and also gives some indications about what we can do to try to address that. And the second recommendation is also an attempt to acknowledge some of the challenges that do exist in terms of especially maybe access in developing countries, and that's a big, big challenge, of course, and gives, again, some direction of what could possibly be a way forward to try to mitigate such challenges. I think I'll stop there, Chairman. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. I open the floor for discussion. U.S.? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all colleagues. The United States strongly supports both of these recommendations. We would seek a bit of clarification on the term "members" in this context. Mr. Chairman, through you, perhaps we could get a better understanding of that, but otherwise, we think the text and the sentiment behind both sentiments [sic] are very strong and we are supporters. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S. That was one of my concerns. Per, can you clarify what do you mean by "members"? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. I think we had such a discussion also during the last meeting and I think we have also had this discussion internally and we acknowledge that it's not necessarily the best word to use here. I think the original intent was that these recommendations were put forward to the CSTD, and then for that reason we were elaborating with the word "members." But I think this is broader than just the recommendations to the CSTD. It's recommendations to the whole community. So maybe "stakeholders" would be a better word or -- well, I would be very interested in hearing what other colleagues have to say about that. I think it's an interesting -- when we look through all the recommendations at a later stage, that we agree on how we can -- it's interesting to see how we can streamline them, and this is one of those, I think, cross-cutting issues that we have: To whom do we address these recommendations. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Definitely your observation about the recommendations, they are not addressing the CSTD members. That's clear. So we are addressing a broader community, and we have been mandated by the U.N. General Assembly. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Per, for presenting these two recommendations and the countries involved in preparing the recommendations. These two paragraphs, in fact. Mr. Chairman, I share the same, let's say, concern on the "members" with the previous speaker, but I have some other comments on these two paragraphs and seeking point of clarifications, Mr. Chairman. For example, in the first paragraph, what are "all stakeholders" referring to here? Because I see that there are some difference between "stakeholders" in the first paragraph and in the second paragraph. Maybe the second paragraph, "all the stakeholders" means the people, not stakeholders. Therefore, there should be some differences between these two "stakeholders" used in these paragraphs. The other one, what are "the existing global Internet governance"? That, we think -- if it's only fora which just discussing, that's something else than what we are looking for, which are mechanisms to deal with the Internet governance. The other matter, we're concerned about just limiting the challenges developing countries are facing to only funding mechanisms and remote participation, because -- and the problem with remote participation is the infrastructure, it's not just the participation. Therefore, those infrastructures should be in place to have the remote participations, and therefore, limiting to these two items, I think -- and leaving out the other challenges which developing countries are facing needs to be dealt with here in this paragraph. On the second paragraph, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns on using "fair and consistent." What is "fair and consistent"? Because "fair" has a relative meaning and everyone can interpret in its own way. Therefore, I am looking to see -- to hear the -- the specifications of the proponents of these two paragraphs on the points I raised. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, including the comments that was said by previous speaker, if we will strengthen the participation of all stakeholders, is it equally or within their respective roles? This is a point for -- I mean, a question for us. "Existing global Internet governance." Doing what? Developing international policy issues? There is no existing. So we need to be specific in which area we need to strengthen participation. The second recommendation, "domestic framework" is okay, but we need to put emphasis on "international framework," as enhanced cooperation meant to be an international (indiscernible) with respect to public policy issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I can hear from the remarks that there's room for improvement, but to me the message is that we can work on that. Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Good morning. I'm Ellen Blackler, with the Walt Disney Company, one of the business representatives on the panel. I wanted to support the sentiment here and the recommendation particularly on the remote participation. I think there's no question that where we have had remote participation, the -- we have had increased participation and more diverse participation and better outcomes. So notwithstanding the challenges that that presents, particularly in areas of our good infrastructure, I think it's important that we have a recommendation that we do a better job with that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. I have been approached by some remote participants that I should increase the volume of my voice, which is also an obstacle to participate actively in this meeting, so I try to do my best and I'm really sorry I'm not being too loud. Victoria? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. Just to -- to thank you for your remark and sharing with us the feeling of the group regarding the improvements that we can have in these recommendations, and sorry if I take the floor before consulting with my fellow co-proponents, but Mexico is willing to work with the -- with some of the issues that were already stated by some colleagues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Excellent. That's the type of intervention I am looking forward to. So as we mentioned, we are going to have this two-hour lunch break. Probably a short part will be dedicated to take some food and the other part will be dedicated to work on the recommendations, and I encourage those who would like to work on that -- in particular, eventually Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Sweden, Brazil, and all others who are interested -- to -- do not miss this excellent opportunity to work on this recommendation. Before we go to the next one, let me take the opportunity to ask India for the general comments you wanted to make. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to interrupt the process, but since you asked us to take the floor, I want to touch on two aspects of our work. One is the procedural and the other is the substantive dimensions. In terms of procedure, Mr. Chair, one is, we do have a lot of contributions made by members of the working group, as well as other part- -- observers and various other participants. While we do respect their views and however divergent they are, given the vast range of opinions that we are having to attend, it is important that the recommendation that we want to make try and capture, as much as possible, the diversity. And while we want to go through these proposals and agree on some, at the same time -- like for example, the procedure that we are following is we agree on some paragraphs and move forward, but I think we have to recognize also the fact that wherever there is no agreement the text is being taken out, naturally, but the challenge is it has to be seen at the end of the entire process in its entirety. I mean, we have this saying in the U.N. system that when we agree on some paragraphs, we say agreed ad referendum, with the intention to come back and see in its entirety when everyone agrees on the overall text, then we take that as an agreement of the group which is working on it. So I think that principle is important from India's perspective, and I'm sure many of the colleagues who have been working in the U.N. systems, this is followed and I think it provided a good result. Sometimes it's a little painful but that's how it is. That's number one. So from that perspective, I would -- it would be useful to keep this -- at least we would like this point to be reached -- I mean, it would be made time and again if required, but I think this point is important from our delegation's perspective. Second, which I wish to also make is, you had earlier in the initial intervention -- initial introduction very kindly agreed that we would also look at the possibility of capturing the broad opinions, and we have said it in -- even in the previous sessions of the working group that the -- given the enormity of the challenges that we have in terms of bringing an agreement on fairly important, as the delegations perceive, it is -- we have to recognize that it will be difficult to bridge those gaps on some of the core issues because the discussions are not taking place only here but outside this working group, both within the U.N. system as well as further beyond. So if you can give this recognition, then we as a working group perhaps could be able to provide the diversity of that opinion presented as models, and without prejudice to the opinion that is contained in other places and on a voluntary basis, if the groups within the room -- if the opinions can be consolidated and taken as part of the report, not as an annex to the report, because the annexes tend to not sometimes make the same impact as much as you have it in the body of the text. Such an approach would help us to arrive at the recommendations that we were looking at. That means we will have clearly defined models with broadly the -- within the working group there seem to be maybe two models, maybe three, and third, thereafter, we have some commonly agreed recommendations which are to be read in conjunction with whichever one -- models that has been agreed to be included. And thereafter, third point I also want to make is that this is a very dynamic process that we are engaged in. I think it will be our endeavor to arrive at a decision on some of these recommendations, but I think there are challenges which you yourself have pointed out that how do this working group take the benefit of developments outside. As I said, they need not be presented as submissions but they can be -- each member in the group can bring those into the sort of discussion platform and we are able to arrive at some more concrete recommendations. So at the end of it, Chair, we are in your safe hands. We know that you will steer us well and through the end, but we would encourage you to take these views on board as you go along. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. I'm not in disagreement with you. So reflecting on your first remark, naturally we shall follow the U.N. good practice. As for the opinions, it's up to the group how to include, because we did agree that we -- in case -- in case of difference of opinions -- and I couldn't hear any differences. Yeah? Anyway, so in case of differences of opinions, probably this will be reflected. Whether it will be in the body of the report or if it is annexed probably is up to the group to decide. I have no preference. It can be anywhere. As to where to put it, at the beginning, at the end, I have no preference either. And, well, I can see no problem with this remark. And probably as for the -- what I call a moving target, in view of the -- all of the processes going on and all of the developments, probably this is a good way to bring into this discussion the experiences on personal interventions. We are not going to make any judgment about other processes, naturally, but we shall learn. And we -- I am not afraid of learning from other processes, and probably I assume that you are not either. So now let's face it. We are talking about something which is -- which has been established 10 years ago. The Internet itself has been established 20 years ago. The Internet -- I don't know where to start, from TCP/IP protocol, whatever, but we are not talking about something which has been around for centuries. So we are -- we are in a learning curve ourselves, and to learn from a process which has been going on for 20, 25 years is not a big deal in terms of history. So there's nothing wrong about learning from other processes and other experiences. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Just a brief comment on the proposal made by India just now. I think we spent also considerable time discussing this issue at the last meeting, and it is our opinion that we should first and foremost focus on our mandate, and our mandate is to produce recommendations. And the working method by which we do so is by consensus in this group. So although we thank the Indian delegation for their remarks and contribution, we think that already now starting to mentally focus on -- on drafting divergent models or statements on how different groupings within this working group -- what kind of -- what would be the ideal, desired results for the different like-minded groupings would take us away from our main objective here and it could also be confusing for the reader if we were to include this divergent sort of models or views in the report. We think that if there is -- if it's necessary to at all state different grouping positions regarding some of the issues that we are not able to reach consensus upon, it would be easier to do so in an annex. But we are not even convinced that we need such an annex or that we need such an annex or that we need such a statement at all. But if -- if it's the sentiment of the group that such statements are needed, we would have a preference for doing so in the annex. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I believe it's -- the most important point for me is to take up all the valuable information or valuable contributions we have, even though we mightn't have agreed to some of them or some part of the working group didn't agree to them. But this information eventually at some later stage or later time -- and I'm talking about two, five or whatever number of years -- can be revisited and to see what we have been doing here, to have a document, a documentation what has been going on. So it's naturally up to you to decide if it's -- it is desirable to have this kind of opinions or processes, it's up to you in case you decide that yes, we should have that but this will be -- I agree, it should be at a later stage that we have already at least gone through all the recommendations, all the draft recommendations, and we have some kind of feeling where we are and what we have achieved. Because I'm sure that we should achieve some positive results and we should end on positive results. So I think I would like to ask Saudi Arabia if you want to comment on that, and anyway, I want to turn to you because next -- you are on the next recommendation. So please, go ahead. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously we strongly support the proposal made by India. We believe that the recommendation of the working group should be consistent, coherent, and they should follow a rational, analytic manner. The Saudi proposal, including this proposal and the section 3, are both based on -- if we take A, B, C, D, and E, you will see there is a rational analytics behind drafting this proposal. So separating them will be misleading really when they read the full report or the full recommendation. So again, we support the Indian proposal. And based on the recommendation, our view is enabling the recommendation to the developing countries. We see that there is a need for a platform for all member states can come on equal footing to development of an ISOC policy. This platform would take care of capacity building, education or technical support. Financial support, as we know in the U.N. system, are taken care through these international body platforms. So the whole support we provide to developing countries by establishing such mechanisms. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, right now I think we have taken note of the Indian proposal and we have taken note of the different opinions, and I suggest we proceed with the discussion of the Saudi proposal draft recommendations. Anyone -- any comments on that? India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair. This is a proposal I think we fully endorse for reasons which I had explained in our intervention and also in the IGF meeting also. There are, I think, two critical elements which are one, global Internet governance to be on equal footing and number two, with regard to the importance of capacity building as well as financial dimensions. So from that point of view, this -- obviously we will have to put it in words in terms of having to make it as a recommendation. At this point in time, it's an idea which we endorse fully. Obviously we'll have to see how it can shape as a good recommendation. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. It seems to me that you are trying to accumulate as much work as you can for your lunch break. ( Laughter ) No. Joking. Mexico. >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. I can see this proposal also -- this proposal has some reflection of the previous one. I can see lots of elements that the previous proposals we have been discussing are (indiscernible). And naturally the proposal that follows this, the one by Mexico, and I can see many of the elements that we have in these three elements on the previous one. Just one question regarding the first recommendation, providing a platform. My colleague already gave us a brief explanation, but it wasn't quite clear to me. Sorry, I was not following, and probably we can work instead of having three or four different paragraphs and three or four different processes between delegates, we can have only one and make a merge of all the recommendations because I see many -- it's just an echo of the previous one. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Victoria. Did I get you right, that you are suggesting to have a kind of group which would discuss the previous proposals and this proposal and try to come out with some kind of common -- I'm all for it. Anything which is a positive approach, I'm all for it. Marilyn and then Iran. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I will support Mexico's suggestion that the recommendations which are about capacity building and a focus on strengthening participation of developing countries come together, and I would like to join that group and discuss the practicalities of how to advance a recommendation -- maybe more than one in the end, but at least one -- that can enjoy broad support. I do just have a question for clarification. My exposure in the past to seeing how recommendations that require U.N. funding are treated in the U.N. budget has -- would perhaps cause caution to me to think that U.N. funding is going to be easily available. So perhaps the group can also take up a discussion about the practicalities of funding. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. This is indeed a very significant aspect, funding. And we know it from experience and in particular from this working group, which is almost self-funded. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief since we are going to convene in a small group on this paragraph and the others. Just I wanted to mention that I agree with the previous speakers that there are some points that shares in this and the other -- in this paragraph proposed by Saudi Arabia and the others. But the difference is that here we have a very clear separate -- three separate items that -- which are very important for the developing countries to focus on. Therefore, these paragraphs could -- I mean, the very basis for the group to work on that, and I think that there are maybe some items that is out of that which I would like to stress and which is also beside technical support, also be the developing countries technological support. That one is out that we would like to insert in the -- the group discussion. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. From the interventions up to now I could hear positive attitudes toward this proposal and probably I can -- I could also hear that there are commonalities with the previous proposal. I will give you the floor, Saudi Arabia. And I heard the suggestion to have a kind of just one group to work on that, to merge different proposals. Is it agreeable to the proponents? Saudi Arabia, I'm asking you. And Iran, you'd like to participate in that as well. I'm just happy to hear that. Saudi Arabia, would you like to comment? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments goes to the financial support. I'm sure that developing countries, if there is a clear mechanisms that will enable them, they will be the first to fund such funds. They would be the first to send money so they would be enabled on equal footing with other member states to perform their agreed role in the Tunis Agenda. So funding is not an issue. Once we have a clear picture everyone will come and I mean contribute wisely, financially to this mechanisms where everyone would perform their role as the Tunis Agenda. Regarding the merging all -- I mean, recommendation and another section, we agree but keeping the essence of our recommendation to be focused on international equal footing. I mean, we can work together on this in these three days. Thank you so much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Russia. >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Actually I would like to say that we agree with the main logic of this recommendation and we see that the equal participation of developing countries in this process is really the issue and we also would like to take part in the group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Russia. Anyone on this issue? U.S.? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States would agree that individual bullets within this paragraph have some good ideas as far as capacity building and encouraging greater participation in international Internet governance of developing countries. However, just to take a larger perspective on the overall proposal that these boards are contained in, the U.S. is not at all supportive of the idea of creating a new U.N. body on this matter. People have raised funding issues. That is one concern. We also believe that a new U.N. body would completely go against the multistakeholder model of Internet governance which the entire WSIS is supportive of and the U.S. in particular are supportive of and just like to remind everyone that paragraph 106 of the Tunis Agenda mentions that implementation of the WSIS outcomes should not require the creation of any new Internet operational bodies. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S. Let me ask you, would you like to participate in this smaller drafting group? I can see you're nodding. Okay. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Just to indicate our interest in participating in this group as well and then that it's possible to merge different recommendations and elements in different recommendations, we see value in that. And regarding this specific recommendation from Saudi Arabia, we agree with Mexico that there are some similarities with the previous one that we just discussed and there are some good elements. However, along the lines of what was just said by the delegate from the United States, we do also have difficulties with the idea of a new -- a new platform or a new mechanism for enhanced cooperation. But we are willing to discuss this further in the small group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Saudi Arabia and then Japan. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are willing to listen very carefully, especially the section on the Internet governance. I would love to draw their attention to paragraph 60 that the current mechanisms are not adequately addressing international public policy issues. Paragraph 61 this process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanism, so this is possible. The resolution of (indiscernible) was very clear, to fully implement enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda. So we can't write a recommendation on creating a new organization. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Japan also has difficulty to accept to setting a new -- a new mechanism, but the rest of the proposal, including capacity building and financial support, we would like to support. And I think that the other Japanese proposal also included capacity building. So I think we -- we can cooperate with each other to make a recommendation. So I would like to support the Mexico idea. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I have heard all of the opinions. I can sense some convergence. I can still feel some divergence, so I would like to encourage you to use your lunchtime in a very efficient manner and come back after lunch break with a kind of joint recommendation which is implementable. And for me this is the keywords, "implementable." Is there any member who would like to take the floor on this issue? If not, I give the floor to observer. Richard. >>RICHARD HILL: Yes, Chairman. I just once again would like to draw attention to the elephant in the room which the coded language is carefully avoiding. As far as I know, the only area where in fact there is a lack of equal footing among governments with respect to what may or may not be public policy issues is the supervision of the Internet domain names and addresses. But I think it's important to stress that the NTIA, the United States has now announced a (indiscernible) by which they may pull out of that. And if they pull out of that, then that particular equal footing problem would hopefully be resolved? So I think it's important to keep that in mind when going forward, that historically this language came from that and that problem may go away depending on what the U.S. does later on. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Richard, for reminding us of this very important aspect and probably all of us are aware of that. It's an ongoing process. It's outside the mandate of this group, and naturally we follow with interest and some of us follow it actively, the whole process within other fora. But for the time being we try and concentrate on the issues we have put forward ourselves or we have received as contributions. Nigel. >>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. It's good of you to call observers. I mean, clearly the whole discussion on the new process and new mechanism, whatever, is something that's -- that is live. All I wanted to note is that in the -- in the ICANN context, the equal footing of governance is pursued through the Government Advisory Committee where all governments have a role to play in developing policy in terms of the Government Advisory Committee. And they do participate on equal footing in that context. On the point that Richard made in terms of the NTIA announcement -- and of course I think you mentioned that you would perhaps invite the U.S. government to make a comment on that -- all that I would say is that the responsibility of ICANN is to pursue a consultation, a dialogue on the effect of the announcement. That, we are doing. There is an ongoing dialogue taking place that people can contribute to on line. But of course there will also be discussions in other fora going forward, including the Internet Governance Forum. I know it's not germane to this group, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigel. Well, as I said earlier, we are all aware of these this events which have taken place, but probably we have to concentrate on our work. Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I know that we are not at that granular level to talk about oversight of critical Internet resources and their mechanisms because our disagreements right now float at a much higher level and we need to cross those levels before we come to the details, but I just wanted to make my observation or express my opinion on whether what is happening in terms of what Richard pointed out, too, is a part of our mandate or not. And it's my understanding that oversight of critical Internet resources was always supposed to be a part of enhanced cooperation rubric and debate, and the Tunis Agenda is very clear that enhanced cooperation includes development of public policy principles related to critical Internet resources and those public policy principles are relevant only to the extent that they can actually be inputted into the critical Internet resource management system and that inputting structure, mechanism, or whatever you call it, therefore, is a part of enhanced cooperation and discussions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Thank you, Parminder. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm sorry to take the floor again. Well, we know that the Internet management encompasses both (indiscernible) public policy issues, so the recent announcement dealing with the technical part we look here at the entire (indiscernible), what the global Internet governance can enable everyone. As I'm taking the floor, if we can before the break specify how many, I mean, either groups would like to work together, so we can -- we are a small delegation -- so we can cover the net between each other. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So this is one of the most relevant questions about the number of groups, so I -- let me turn to the secretariat to take note of the groups we propose to form. In my understanding, we are talking about two groups. One of them is going to deal with the proposal of Japan, and the -- later we merge two groups. A proposal -- a joint proposal from Mexico, Sweden, Brazil, U.K., on one hand, and I believe Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia's proposals on the other hand. And if I -- did I get you right that you wanted to merge relevant elements of these proposals? So that is my understanding, that there will be two groups during lunch break. So if I were you, I would take a half an hour lunch break and 45 minutes for one group and 45 minutes for the other group. But it's up to you. Oh, and we are still waiting for Avri's consultations with her group, so we are looking forward to have a very nice lunch break. Probably in the remaining five minutes, I think we still have one observer who wanted to take the floor? Yeah? >>GEORGES RADJOU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. As I understood the problem of Internet, for me I see -- my vision is about the fact that we may look for -- we may look to know who owns Internet, because at the moment I feel there is -- there are two trains in the room. The train which is -- which is -- which is thinking Internet for the consumers, which are the people, who are the civil societies, and on the other side, you have people who think that Internet should be the game of the states, and that's -- what's governance? One speaker said that governance is not a matter of money because they have the money, but if I compare with something I know better than Internet, which is water, water -- country -- some countries have a bunch of water so you may say that because they have a lot of water and because water is in all process of human beings, those countries should be developed. In fact, they are not. And countries who don't have water are very developed today, just because of better governance. So money is important, but be- -- beyond money, it's governance which is paramount. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Just a last word to you. Can you introduce yourself? >>GEORGES RADJOU: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Civil society. This is BIRD, Business Innovation Research and Development. NGO. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. >> (off microphone.) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sorry. I think we have covered what we wanted to cover in the morning and I'm really glad because I can feel some kind of willingness to move forward, so I encourage you to use your time in lunch break for that purpose and come back at 3:00. Thank you. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon. Well, I'm glad to see that you had a large group discussing recommendations for Group D. I've been briefed about the state of the affairs. I wouldn't call it the results, but the state of the affairs. It's not what I expected in either sense of the word. It's better, but it can be improved. So what I suggest is that probably there should be some more discussion on this issue. I think there is some common ground and I would suggest that you continue this discussion after the afternoon session and eventually you can come back tomorrow morning and tell me about the results. What I would like to see is to have recommendations which are relatively simple, relatively short, and as Mr. Arasteh said, which can be implemented. And that is the bottom line. Recommendations should be implemented. Now, before the break, I asked Japan and other interested parties to have some modifications to the draft recommendation of Japan. I would like to have your report about the work, eventual work you have done during the lunch break. No? >>JAPAN: The -- including Japan, the related members meet together and discuss the recommendation, but we have not still reached consensus, so we haven't amended the recommendation. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is my understanding correct that you had a separate group? You had a separate discussion from the big group I saw here? >>JAPAN: No. We -- the three groups merged to deal with the whole similar recommendations. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So I -- let me repeat what I said, that I hope that in the -- after the afternoon session, some of you who would like to get engaged in formulating this group of recommendations, but I can see some common ground and I can see some convergence of ideas. Of course there are divergences, I can feel that. I would like to ask you to sit down and again and try for a second time, eventually a third time, and come out with some recommendations. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think perhaps you have different ways to proceed. One way is to continue to have first some general discussion that everybody listens to everybody else and then go to the level of the small group to try possibly to have some consensus on some things but not the entire text, because they are repetitive in various recommendations and various elements. Perhaps we have to take it starting from a subject we have started before and have an understanding, and the areas we could agree, yes, we agree, and the areas we could not agree, we could not agree. But I think you have to take any of these resolutions. You continue to other parts of the document a general discussion and then going to the level of the group. That might be a possibility. As far as I understood in the last half an hour before your meeting, that there is a ground -- or there's room for some type of understanding among the people. It's a matter of wording, it's a matter of structure, it's a matter of how to address, and it's a matter of approach. And the issue is this: No doubt people differently or separately have written that. They have a right to what they're writing but we have to have a common understanding and have to have a structure, a style, and methodology or approach and so on and so forth. That is my suggestion. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. I think we are on the same wavelength. Okay. So I think as for general ideas, we have already had three meetings, so we more or less know what we are talking about, And since these draft recommendations have been around for some time so it's not -- nothing new, you had ample of time to go through them and eventually you might have had some ideas how to take similar parts, similar ideas from different recommendations and put them together. So it's really a matter of wording and I think if you accept my suggestion to work after the meeting hours, then we can achieve something. Saudi Arabia, you wanted to take the floor? Yeah. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Well, my question, Mr. Chairman, we know the divergence is under Group A and B, so -- and I see it is necessary that you go to A and B and resolve the divergence. Once we do this, C, D, and E will go smoothly. Because if we keep talking about C, D and E, issues from A and B will jump in the discussion. So we are not going anywhere without resolving A and B. At least this is my understanding, but I mean it's up to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I take note of your remark and probably as I indicated and we accepted in the agenda, we are going back to this issue, but first I really want to go through, at least once, all the recommendations. I mean, people have been working -- you know as well as I do you have been working very hard. Other people were working very hard. So let's go through the draft recommendations at least once and see the whole picture, and then we can revisit things we think are beneficial for this discussion. Avri submitted a new version of the recommendations from the group, so can you introduce the new text? >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly. Thank you, Chair. Okay. What we tried to do -- and this was the whole group of us, minus one, who happens to be on an airplane at the moment and I guess one was there some of the time but not always. So what we tried to do was get rid of the offending language. We tried to sort of avoid the twin towers of A and B conflicts while still making the points. So in the first -- and we removed one of the points and brought the content into the others. So the first bullet being, "Recommends that existing mechanisms for public policy related Internet issues take into account existing multistakeholder approaches to Internet governance." On that one, I realize that the word "existing" got used twice, once in reference to mechanisms for public policy and once in reference to multistakeholder approaches. I'm sure a better grammatical choice could have been made. The second one, "Recommends that existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms be used to support enhanced cooperation among all stakeholders, including governments, on an equal footing." Third point: "Encourages the U.N. and the global Internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation/engagement of all stakeholders from developing countries, to ensure that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of Internet policy globally." Again, the issue was not that the U.N. had to provide money, but to help identify mechanisms for finding money. So that wasn't removed, although that was one of the comments made. "Encourages and enables developing countries, including both governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing multistakeholder mechanisms at national and regional level and by democratization at all levels, including the global level." Now, there had been a note there that said "this should be mechanisms at international," but what we were trying to say here is that we need to further develop the national and regional levels to contribute to the international, so it seemed redundant to put "at international, national, and regional level." So that -- we tried to take into account the comments, tried to fix the language. I think it's all implementable, but I leave that to others. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I will give you a couple of minutes to go through. Probably this is the first time you see this version. Before taking your comments, please take the time to go through and then I will turn again to you for your comments. Okay. So I can identify Iran, then Parminder, Saudi Arabia. Please, Kavouss. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think what was read is still overlapping some of the ideas -- national, regional, and so on -- and sometimes in some earlier text, it was to extensive and too descriptive, using words that may create difficulty. Perhaps we could reduce that to the minimum necessary. And then I mentioned at the meeting before your formal meeting that there is currently no general understanding of what is multistakeholderisms, their constituencies, their roles and responsibilities, and their footing. People refer to equal footing. Still there is misunderstanding of what equal footing is. If you want, we can explain. If you don't, we don't explain at this stage, because this is coming from the WSIS 2003, 2005. So still this text need to be shortened and should be more precise and more concise and avoid overlapping, mentioning that this issue needs to be formally and properly addressed: what is multistakeholderisms, what is the constituencies of that, and what are the roles and responsibilities of those, and what is the meaning and criteria, the criteria of equal footing. This should be mentioned. It is already elsewhere. We should also mention it here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. The first two paragraphs speak of existing price and generally says that the existing organisms, existing stakeholder approaches, and I don't see what -- how it constitutes really a recommendation, especially in terms of practical, implementable. I just -- it seems to me to say that, well, things are what they are. And the second one which says that existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms be used to support enhanced cooperation, and in the smaller group, some participants rightly observed that there's not going to be an acceptance because people don't agree that a new body or mechanism may be needed, which is fine, because there are people who don't agree and therefore, we cannot have a consensus on that. But to recommend that existing mechanisms, whether multilateral or multistakeholder, be used to support enhanced cooperation as a recommendation of a group which has been tasked to give recommendations to fully implement Tunis Agenda in terms of the enhanced cooperation mandate is to say that you don't need a new mechanism. And there are many people who do not agree to that particular stance as well. So in negative, if you say that there is no need of new mechanism is as divisive here as perhaps to say that there is a need for a new mechanism. And therefore, this negative language really does not -- is not acceptable, as you would know, for many people in the room. And the Paragraphs 3 and 4 seem to suggest that if developing countries are not able to participate in global public policymaking on Internet issues, it is either because of the funding issue or because there is no capacity at national and regional level, which I don't accept is the main fact. The main fact is that there is no global mechanism for developing countries to be on equal footing to develop Internet-related policies and these policies are largely developed at the level of multilateral bodies like OECD, Council of Europe, and such bodies which make international treaties, international principles, et cetera. The absence of mechanism is the issue and not the funding and capacity at national and regional levels. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, our concern still exists regarding Recommendations 1 and 2, so in short, we don't believe that there is existing mechanism dealing with international Internet public policy issues. Regarding the third recommendation, we are under the group of developing countries and we speak here about "to support the participation and engagement of all stakeholders from developing countries to ensure that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in the development." That means equal footing in the development, which is against the Paragraph 35 that defines the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder. I mean, it is -- this is even against Tunis Agenda. The last one, "at national and regional level and by democratic at all levels including global," we do have mechanism at the national and we do mechanism at the regional. The issue is with the international level. There is no mechanisms at the international level to enable all government on equal footing. So I don't see how this recommendation will fully implement enhanced cooperation as (indiscernible) now. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: I wanted to speak in support of this -- these recommendations, and it might help -- if it helps clarify on the second one the multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms we're talking about, we could say -- reference the mapping that we've done that lists a great many of those. So we could perhaps, if it helps clarify that, say "recommend the existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms, comma, examples of which are in the mapping document," and that may help clarify it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. India? >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair. Just quickly, I don't want to be repetitive. Some of the ideas which we had on the first three paragraphs have been captured by Parminder in more or less very clear terms. I'd like refer my comments to the last paragraph, which is -- see, here there is a contradiction from the perspective that we hold. It would be true from Avri's point of view. But I think the challenge here is twofold. One, we are tell -- we are asking the developing countries themselves to have a greater role in Internet governance, but we're not talking about developing countries. They're already seeking a role. They're saying there is no role. But the perspective that we have to look at is, by making a recommendation like this without defining what is the platform on which you are providing this role, it doesn't make any headway, number one. Number two, well, multistakeholder mechanisms I think -- you know, in formal discussions, I think they -- this point did come up about the need for having greater clarity on multistakeholderism. I think after a very decent meeting, you know, our conviction has become more stronger that there is -- absolutely there is a need to define multistakeholderism, multistakeholder approach, multistakeholder process. As to -- because it means different things for different people who are participating in the meetings. I mean, if there are a group of people who are interpreting the wide swath of opinion that comes in front of the audience and they become adjudicators for everyone else's opinion and thereby it becomes a decision, or whichever way you call it, is an outcome document or a consensus, but whatever name you want to give, and thereby we all clap and go home happy, I think it calls for more serious and thorough engagement of ourselves in defining, on some of the parameters which we have heard some positive elements, which I must con- -- duly acknowledge, with regard to the accountability mechanisms, et cetera. Of course this is not relevant to this particular recommendation that we're making. I think it will be a fitting thing for this working group to certainly pay some attention to this dimension. It only enhances the overall global approach towards multistakeholderism. We're not opposed to this idea, as I said in the beginning also. It is just that we need more greater clarity, and unless we reach that particular level of confidence to use this particular phrase with greater appreciation and greater acceptance, we'll have to do some more homework for which I think this working group might consider, at some stage, spending some time. And with this comment, Mr. Chair, the last paragraph, I think we have challenges on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I am glad to hear that you had challenges only with the last one after having told your opinions about the previous one. So multistakeholderism and definition of multistakeholderism, I understand the desire to be precise, but I just want to reiterate, I think one of the first meetings I quoted Max Planck who was the father of quantum mechanics and he was asked, what is quantum mechanics and he said, I don't know but people get used to it. So having said that, Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. And we would like to thank the proponents for reworking these recommendations and we would also like to express our support for these four recommendations that we think are very valuable. Just to maybe pick up on the comment made by Parminder previously about the issue of existing mechanisms and the fact that the room is somewhat divided on this issue, we do think, of course, that there are existing mechanisms for dealing with public policy issues related to the Internet and we think that the work of the correspondence group is worth consulting regarding this issue. But we also acknowledge, of course, that we are probably not going to solve that division of interpretation of this issue today, so maybe for the first recommendation if we, instead of talking about mechanisms, could talk about dialogue, which is maybe more general because it's -- maybe that could make this recommendation more acceptable to some. That's just a proposal to try to be a little bit constructive here because I think most of us would at least acknowledge that there -- it does -- there does exist a global dialogue on public policy issues related to the Internet. So that's just a proposal. Thank you. >> My distinguished colleague from Sweden prefers and prefers and prefers to dialogue. Dialogue is already in paragraph 72. How do we have to, after ten years, saying that we now contend that the dialogue is mentioned here. If policy dialogue called Internet governance -- the dialogue is already there. So we not talk of dialogue. So we should talk about the mechanism. The multilateral mechanism and multistakeholderisms and so on and so forth and if there is a need to something. But something we forgot, that is the paragraph A of 35. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issue is the sovereign rights of the states. That's not the other multistakeholder. Other multistakeholder is paragraph B, C, D, and E. So we have to be very clear. We would like to find a mechanism which could enable government to observe the public policy issues. And admitting of everything -- and my distinguished colleague prefer to dialogue. I don't think we need to. I think in this recommendation the only paragraph is mechanism. What mechanism we have to mention? Existing multilateralism and multistakeholderism with the need to define what is it. People are talking about Civil Society, private sector, technical community, the other academia and the added users, they've added other people, we don't know. An equal footing. What is equal footing, Chairman? Equal footing in WSIS was within the governments only. Not one single government has full authority on everything. Equal footing is not between the government for public policy issue and private sector. Someone will speak on behalf of himself or herself could not say that or have the same footing with somebody speak on behalf of the one billion seven -- 300 million people. This is not equal footing. Public policy issues you'll find by the government who protect the interest of publics. Until you say that no direct government is in the works, everything is out. If you agree that everything is democracy, the government is protecting the rights of the public. So public policy issue goes to the government as we have here. So if you have to mention it. I don't think that we could agree with reference to dialogue. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of points. First of all, I thought we were sort of trying to stay away from replaying A and B in this one, but I'm more than willing to sort of remind that when we're talking about the roles of stakeholders we still have a large gulf. Many of us see the roles of stakeholders and enhanced cooperation not within a single paragraph but in the context of a wider set of paragraphs. Even when we look at paragraph 35, I'd like to point out that there are two sentences in 35. That sovereignty is referred to within the country. It then has a second sentence that sort of says and they have special rights and special response -- they have special responsibilities within the context of international public policy. But it does not say that they have sovereignty within the international public policy of the Internet. So we have two sentences there that get confounded constantly. And that becomes a problem when we try to say that therefore, because of their sovereignty within a nation, that they therefore have sovereignty over public policy in the Internet. Those two do not derive from each other. So -- Now, in terms of equal footing, indeed we do need to go back to A and B and discuss what it means for sectors to have equal footing, not one person versus a government. When people talked about definitions, I come from a philosophical background and I could cover probably a full semester's discussion on just about every word there and the varieties of meaning in that. I'm surprised that nobody challenged me on the word "democratization." That sort of is another word that is difficult to define and I'm sure that if we all defined democratization in this room we would find multiple definitions of it. Also the last thing I wanted to point out is while I have submitted it, there was sort of an implication that this was a northern statement but that the statement was indeed crafted together by Civil Society, by non-governmental actors from both north and south. I just happened to be the one with my name attached to it and the one talking about it here. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Victoria? >>MARIA VICTORIA ROMERO: Thank you, Chair. Just to express that we feel sympathy for -- we feel -- we like the first paragraph and if you allow me to express that in the case of Mexico it was a very good experience, especially for preparing for NETmundial, to have this multistakeholder approach. And I think it could be very, very useful as well to implementing the whole region with all region of developing countries, especially for Mexico to the south. So I think we have a good experience with the multistakeholder approach. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Baher. >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chairman. And good afternoon, everyone. I -- I would like to support the recommendations offered by Avri and the group. I think I can understand that some language, and particularly in the fourth paragraph, may raise some concerns, and I think we can work on the language. But in general, I mean, I can just focus on the second recommendation that says that existing mechanisms can be used to support enhanced cooperation and just gives, you know, one example by -- I mean, just focusing on ICANN where I come from and many participants in this room have participated in different ICANN constituencies and processes in the past and I think some of them have noticed that in the past maybe couple of years, through different programs, different initiatives, that the role of the -- the Government Advisory Committee has improved. The Government Advisory Committee played a key role in decisions that were made in one particular program, that is the new gTLD program. Governments had the -- Government Advisory Committee do participate on equal footing. Some people see that the GAC within ICANN is a multilateral process within a multistakeholder mechanism or process. So I -- you know, I don't agree to the notion that there isn't any international multistakeholder mechanisms on IG. I'm just giving an example in one very narrow area which is,you know, DNS which I understand is not expand to cover other IG issues, but I think we -- we need to recognize that there are existing mechanisms in some areas, as much as we need to recognize that there are gaps in any existing mechanisms. And I think that the mapping exercise have identified existing mechanisms and identified certain gaps in those mechanisms. So I think we need to put this -- or take this into account while we're looking at any recommendations because, you know, I think there are some good suggestions and proposals made during the day and just keying that we do not, you know, lose track by just saying well, we do not agree to this language. We need to go to Tunis Agenda or to that language or whatever. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher. USA. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. The United States would also like to give its support generally to these recommendations. Obviously there's some words that we might like to wordsmith a little bit, but generally we think these are very good recommendations. And on that note, I guess I would like to agree with the statement by some previous speakers that it's important with the little time we have left to concentrate on what we think we can reach consensus on. Obviously we understand that there's very entrenched views on whether or not there needs to be a new U.N. body. Some of us believe that there should not be such a body and some of us believe there do. Some of us believe that there's no organizations that governments can affect public policy related to the internet. Some of us see the work of the correspondence group and realize that there are quite many. I don't know if that will be solved today. But these are all very good, positive recommendations. You know, we get bogged down talking about the WSIS text on the political level but it was a development oriented summit and these are all expressed needs from the developing world that we can really make some effective contributions and recommendations on. We think it's valuable to move forward in that vein. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Yulia. >>ELANSKAYA YULIA: Well, regarding the stakeholder including government on equal footing, we also cannot agree with that because we are talking about the equality among governments on equal footing and that was the -- just the -- a lot of times we're talking about that. And also, I would like to comment regarding the GAC committee. First, I do not think that this is level of our meeting and our mandate to deal with the GAC statement. First of all, it's advisory committee only, not decision-making committee, first. Second, it's the part of ICANN. It is not -- and we believe that ICANN is not the platform for international public policy issues. So it is not, you know, just the -- the issue to discuss in the level of equal footing participation of government in the international public policy issues. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any one of the members who would like to take the floor? Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we've had so many times regarding the GAC, that is very clear from its name, governmental advisory group, which work -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Committee. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Committee. Which work within ICANN and one country alone. So there is not equal footing between government. It is not an international mechanism or framework. So let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman. ICANN is something different, GAC is something different dealing with small part of Internet governance which is technical. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any other members like to take the floor? If not, observers? Richard? >>RICHARD HILL: Yes, thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to make a couple of comments there. My interpretation of the Tunis Agenda is not the same as the one Avri Doria gave. It seems clear to me the Tunis Agenda is saying that for matters of public policy that is the sovereign rights of states which have responsibilities to their citizens and to me that's clear because it seems to me implicit in the right to influence decisions which is enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in the ICCPR. So every individual must be able to influence either directly or to his chosen representative public policy decisions and you cannot do that if private companies are on equal footing with Democratically-elected states. I just don't see how that could work. Indeed, the GAC is subordinate to private companies because it has only an advisory role and the GAC representatives on the ICANN Board does not vote. Now, that would not be a problem if there were no public policy matters but if you look at the mandate of the GAC, the mandate of the GAC is precisely to handle public policy matters. So there's a bit of a contradiction there. And as you know our group, The Adjustment Coalition, believes strongly that matters of public policy must be decided Democratically by the elected representatives of the people. Now having said that, I think everyone is talking cross purposes because I think everybody understands that the multistakeholder process -- equal footing multistakeholder process is extremely useful to develop ranges of views and possible consensus. But then when decisions are made at the national level, they go to a national Parliament. And when decisions are made with respect to international law, they're made through the form of treaties. So I think maybe people are just arguing at cross purposes because I don't think people are suggesting that treaties should be made by any mechanism other than elected representatives of the people. I don't think that anybody is saying that laws should be made by any mechanism other than international parliaments. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Richard. Nigel. >>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be very brief because I think the U.S. delegate is right, we need to move on to text that we can -- we can agree on. But just, I mean, this isn't supposed to be a discussion on ICANN and clearly Richard doesn't seem to quite understand the workings of ICANN, and I can of course discuss ICANN at length but I won't do so. I mean, certainly governments aren't subordinate to private interests at ICANN. But the real essence of my intervention was that I -- taking the first, the first sentence, there is nothing contradictory at all in the first sentence with the Tunis Agenda. The first sentence is not, in any sense of the word, saying that governments do not have the sovereign right to make public policy. That is understood and that's in the Tunis Agenda. But it's also the sovereign right of governments to determine how they make public policy. It's the sovereign right of governments collectively, whether it's in the European Union, the African Union, APAC or whatever, collectively in the WTO, WIPO, or whatever, to have the sovereign right to determine how they make public policy. And in making public policy and exercising that sovereign right, many governments have exercised that sovereign right through a multistakeholder process. Throughout consultation with stakeholders, through joint consultation, through joint discussion, through the evolution decision-making processes with stakeholders. So there's nothing contradictory in encouraging the -- or in governance -- for mechanisms of public policy related Internet issues that take into account multistakeholder processes. It's not saying that governments are losing responsibility or losing their sovereign right. It's just saying that in certain circumstances taking into account a multistakeholder approach could be beneficial. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigel. It's definitely not the purpose of this meeting to discuss activities of ICANN and I don't really want to dwell on that issue. There are different views on the role of the Government Advisory Committee, but we are not here to discuss that. Furthermore, I don't think it's in the mandate of interpreting every word of the Tunis Agenda. We really should stick to the mandate and accepting differences where we can accept them and expressing differences where we should express them. However, as it has been said many times, we should concentrate on issues where we can have some common ground and we can have some common understanding and that we can have some consensus of. And before lunch it seemed to me, it seemed to me from your intervention, that the recommendations offered by the group of Avri's was quite favorable and I believe these modifications have been made by Avri according to your interventions. So I can still feel that you are not happy or satisfied with the modifications. So it is not absolutely clear to me that we are -- we are not talking now about wording but we are talking about basic concepts and we didn't have that before lunch, so I'm not really sure where we are now. Eventually, Kavouss where we are. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. You have rightly mentioned it is not up to us to interpret the wording of the WSIS, but I can't agree with my distinguished colleagues from ICANN Europe that, yes, it is the right of the government, however the government needs to consult and needs to take into account or engage different multistakeholder in their own country. That is a policy of the government. We are not here to instruct any government how to establish public policy issue inside the government. This is up to them. They are elected by the people, they are in place by the people, and they know -- and they might have some formal or informal consultation and so on. It is not up to us to say that. But never ever the government has been in the existing situation taken into equal footing. The GAC, which is the governmental section, it is an advisory capacity, nonvoting in the entire system. Nonvoting. The one who elected by the government, the chairman of the GAC, is elected by us. Next year -- this year we elect a chairman for 2015 to 2019 but all governments, 154 governments, members of the GAC. Then this gentleman or lady goes to the meeting of ICANN without any right to vote. With respect to whom? With respect to the other board members, they are not elected by the government, they are elected individually -- or not elected, designated by the nomination committee, by internal issue of GAC -- of ICANN. How they could compare that as a representative of government participating in a nonvoting capacity vis-a-vis 16 other directors which are designated, nominated personally by the nomination group? Please read ICANN bylaws. If you read -- read it 10 times. You know, there is no role of the government. Governments have no role at all. I don't want to even have the example. There was a discussion in ICANN with respect to two gTLDs and then the chairman of the GAC was excluded even to participate on nonvoting capacity. Dear Mr. Baher Esmat, the chairman of the GAC was excluded for participation in the review of the two gTLDs. So how could say that government have roles? Government has no role at all. Advisory. Okay. You advise. But I don't take it. This is advice. So I think we should be there. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. As I indicated, I really want to stop the discussion about ICANN. This is not our role to go into details of bylaws of ICANN. I really appreciate the time. I'm a member as well of the GAC myself, but I don't think this is a proper place to discuss it. I think we should come back to our basic role. That is, to give recommendations. And the recommendations to my mind are recommendations, they are not treaty, so it's take it or leave it. And with this eye and with this in mind, I would encourage you to be positive and go in this direction. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to respectfully disagree with your assessment that these are mere recommendations, take it or leave it. I think at least for India they mean much more than that. The reason being we are created by a U.N. General Assembly resolution and these recommendations would be considered, I'm sure, with all seriousness in the higher levels of the U.N. system as and when they're discussed. And these also come at a time when possibly U.N. General Assembly might come up with a particular mandate for overall implementation of the Tunis Agenda. So from that respect, our work is important. At the same time, it is -- I mean, as a member of this group, we want to be as responsible as we can get, and at the same time, it is -- there are certain fundamental positions that I see in this group that are -- as -- at this point in time, that seem to be not finding a point of convergence, and I think it's very important that we make that recognition and identify those points of con- -- divergence. I think it is -- it will not be -- I mean, we'll not be faulted for having identified those differences, listed them, and number two, move on, that on these issues, well, we could -- as you have agreed also in the past, that we could perhaps list out our opinions and present them as a particular aspect of this group's work. And thereafter, I can be very sure that we would find any number of points of convergence where, if we have identified those core issues of divergence, I think that would be perhaps the right way to do things and we would be -- we will not be faulted, as I said, for having agreed to identify those points of convergence and state it up front. And that is where we move forward. Otherwise, we are caught up in this -- you know, as someone very rightly has pointed out, one of the members -- I forget who it is, but they said that everywhere our vision is getting colored by what we have not been able to achieve in Section A and B, and that particular filter comes in front of us every time we see a recommendation in the subsequent segments. So I think -- I don't think we are right or we're wrong, but I think it's just that the approach that we've adopted is stunting our ability to make any substantive or otherwise progress in the deliberations. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. When I said that we are creating recommendations and not a treaty, I meant it. I am aware of the seriousness of this group and I know the responsibilities we have, and at the same time, I know that draft resolutions of CSTD are being drafted late in the night during a couple of days, and after coming to some conclusion, it is passed to ECOSOC, and then you have the second committee which takes on board the resolution of the ECOSOC and changes it completely. So taking into account, naturally, the resolution of the ECOSOC, there is no doubt about it. So the bottom line, I'm aware that the responsibility we have here is very big and I think all of us do know that. I don't want to belittle it. What I meant by "take it or leave it," it's not treaty like. That was the only thing. Now, as for the opinions, I have nothing against that you come together and present me for tomorrow your opinions. I have nothing against it. I -- I said it last time as well, that you can sit down together and formulate a one-page, one-and-a-half-page as short as possible opinion, and probably I encourage eventually those who may be interested to formulate their opinions in the same way, but I don't really want to have a lengthy one. And if you think this is the way forward and this will remove the obstacles to create recommendations, I'm all for it. So my main purpose is that at the end of the meeting, to come up with some results, because I don't really believe that during four meetings we can't get some results. Especially after the beginning when we managed in one and a half days to formulate a questionnaire of 18 questions, we received substantial replies to the -- responses to the questionnaire. We had a very, very rich contributions. Based on these contributions, we could identify different topics for mapping, existing mechanisms for mapping, finding out what are the gaps. We are in the middle of this exercise. So I think we have gone through quite a long way to achieve something, so if you think -- and that's what I heard as well -- that there are basic things, the differences in Group A and B, I encourage you to formulate your opinion and eventually if there is other groups which would like to do that, I encourage the other group as well to come up with this formulation, this opinion, and let's go on working on the other issues. Is it acceptable? Do you think you can do it for tomorrow? You had -- whatever. I mean, you formulated and other people as well formulated that you'd like to present some opinion about it, about the divergences. Yes, Mr. Reddy. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor again on this subject. I think -- well, I -- as I mentioned in the morning, we could adopt a voluntary process of identifying certain opinions of a group within this working group -- you can call it a subgroup -- and then they perhaps, as I said, without any prejudice to what other group would come up with, the other subgroup would come up with, and we could state up front what are those clear understandings of this working group, that what is said in the report, while there could be consensus and agreement on the overall report but it is not necessarily prejudicing the opinions that have been expressed in some portions of the report. Those caveats can be very clearly explained, and thereby we would have an opportunity to come up with a tangible one. And the second question that you asked me, Chair, about the -- whether I am ready, I think you have -- I will try and -- we'll work along with some colleagues in the room, whoever would like to join, and thereafter we can come up with at least one opinion which can become a basis for other groups, if they wish to. Otherwise -- I mean, we can go parallel. I mean, we are in your hands. Whichever way you wish to do that. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I don't expect you to be in two groups. Anyway, Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think we can call the model to implement enhanced cooperation, model to implement enhanced cooperation, and let us be limited to a maximum one page for each, I mean, views and maximum two models. I think this is better. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Basically, I have no problem with that, so I always want to keep things simple and short but understandable. That is also very important. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Can you just clarify the process that we're entering into now? I'm slightly confused as to what we're being asked to do or what's being asked. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: There was a request of India to express an opinion on basic questions which were formulated, I believe, in A and B, and in general about the whole process of implementing the enhanced cooperation, and they wanted to have opinions formulated in a short way with -- I believe with like-minded members of the group, and I encouraged them already during our last meeting, our third meeting, and I already said that -- in our third meeting that these opinions can be part of the report. The modality, in what way it will be part, we shall discuss. And at the same time, I also asked, naturally, that other opinions can be included. If there is a need, then there is a will to formulate such an opinion. And I have been told that probably once we have these different opinions clearly stated, we can go ahead to find the common understanding on issues where there are convergences of opinion. So basically, that's what I said. And I expect to have these opinions the earliest possible. If it's tomorrow morning, then so much the better. I -- this is wishful thinking, of course, but I hope to have it by tomorrow lunchtime. It would be nice to have it. Because let's face it. We have been talking about that and you have been discussing it amongst yourselves, so probably it's -- it comes down to to sit down and draft it. Or eventually it's my job to draft it. I don't know. So basically, that's what I said. Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: I'm sorry. I just want to check my understanding. So is the idea that we -- that people draft these one-page opinions and we use that as a basis to better understand each other and continue to try to come some recommendations that would form the basis of an outcome document or are these things that would -- you're envisioning being part of the outcome document? >>CHAIR MAJOR: I would think it's the second option. It will be part of the outcome document, just outlining the two possible visions, or eventually more, if need be, of implementing enhanced cooperation. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Like others in the back row from business, I'm seeking clarification, which may mean I'm in need of remedial help, but I need to just further my understanding here. I thought one thing I was hearing proposed by India -- and I could be wrong -- was the idea of expressing -- and I misunderstood, perhaps. When the word "opinion" was used, I thought that was a brief recommendation, but I'm now understanding that "opinion" is sort of a statement of position, so to speak, which describes a particular perspective, and I -- so that would be one clarification I would seek. The second clarification I would seek is, I actually don't discern only two views in the room. I think there may be at least three. So to that point, are we suggesting that these statements would have drafter names on -- draftee -- drafter names on them or a small -- would they be small working groups with participants in them? They would have drafter names on them? And then to the question of how they're used, I really would ask that we postpone making a definite decision about how they fit into the report until we see how they may help us to advance our work on recommendations as well. But my first question is: So are we looking at a one-pager? Two-pager? I would think -- "opinion," to me, it's sounding more like a position paper, but that may just be a business -- you know, I'm just looking -- I'm looking to know what we're going to do. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm sure I can answer your third question about how to include and where to include and what I'm -- naturally, we are going to take a decision at a later stage. As for the two other questions, I will let India eventually answer your question, provided you still remember. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I mean, when we set this particular format of report, if I have to draw the attention of colleagues, we have precedent in the past. We're encouraged by that approach, because when there is significant differences of opinion and each have a respectful place and we are providing that space for that particular opinion in -- as a particular model of achieving enhanced cooperation and thereby fully implement the Tunis Agenda, if we take that as a basis, then we have this work -- the formal -- another group which was set up but already came back, they also came up with such models. Now, I don't think the working group then, I'm sure, was confronted with a very similar situation, that -- where we are today. I don't think they shied away from stating those possibilities up front, and perhaps enabled us subsequently to be picked and chosen from that particular existing models as -- at the higher levels of decision-making. So taking that cue, I don't want to prejudge how many opinions are there in the room, but broadly, as I see it, there are some core issues on which there are a fairly small number of opinions, and subsequently there are many areas where we have some divergences but they can be coalesced into a formal recommendation. So if we provide for those core divergences into those models, into one, two, three -- I mean, two, I guess, would be all right, three, I mean, depending on how you eventually see it, Mr. Chair, and thereafter we can also identify those specific areas where we can perhaps come up with recommendations excluding those few things. However, having said this, the process -- I mean, again, Chair, we'll be guided by you. It could be a voluntary process. I don't think we need to create subgroups, identify each group, who will go in which group. I might be liking some ideas and other opinion -- in another model which is coming up. So it is a voluntary process which you could help us to sort of lead in that direction. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. There's nothing wrong or harmful to include these models or opinions in the report. I should only call your attention to the fact that comparison to the previous working group of Internet governance had a slightly different status. It has been convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations where this working group has been created by the General Assembly of the United Nations. So I can sense some difference as for accountability, and I wouldn't dare to use the word "impact" but eventually even the impact would be slightly different. Having said that, reflecting on the voluntary nature of this group, yes, I agree it should be voluntary so I don't really want to created subgroups. I'm -- probably you can organize yourselves according to your wishes. And it can be done after working hours. And hopefully it will be a very productive outcome. And which will really help us to move forward. And that is the main idea, to move forward. And I have to repeat, even if it seems to be a long time, ten years, it's nothing. And for those who have a long culture and a long history, they know that ten years is nothing. So please be patient. Be patient. We haven't come here to change the world from one day to another. No. It wouldn't work. We can do some small contribution. And if it can come up with eventually these models or opinions and we can really create some recommendations, I think we haven't done -- we haven't done really badly. So probably we have done quite a good job. Sweden, you wanted to take the floor? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Just a couple of reflections. I think we are going down a very difficult path to -- but we are prepared to do so, if that's the sentiment of the room, that we should start to focus on where we have some divergent opinions. However, it's important that we make clear what these opinions should be about. Is it on how to implement enhanced cooperation generally or is it on some specific categories of issues that we have recommended? That would be very helpful to know before we start our drafting exercise. I also agree with, I think it was -- well, one of the previous speakers at least that said it might be difficult just to identify two views. I think we are -- we're 25 participants in this working group or 30 maybe, so we -- in theory we could most probably come up with at least as many views. But having said that, we are willing to work with like-minded to try to express some opinion on enhanced cooperation generally, if that's what we will be tasked to do, or some specific categories of issues that have been identified, if that's what we are -- will be tasked to do. However, just two things, to highlight two things that we think might be of importance, one is that -- well, other colleagues have said it as well, we would have to see how we use this -- how we use these opinions and if they would be needed in the end to attach to the report in form of an annex or something like that. But if it's the case that this is going to be a product or 2 or 3 or 4 or 30 products that should be attached to the report, for us, for Sweden, it's very important that it will be explicitly stated which view we subscribe to. Others might have different views on this and might not want to associate themselves with one or the other opinion. But for us, it's very important that it's explicitly stated which opinion that we subscribe to. So I think that may be something that could be dealt with through an annex opinion by, and then you list the different stakeholders that subscribe to opinion 1 and then to opinion 2, and so on. I think that's -- at least for us, that's very important to have that reflected. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think we are approaching the treatise status. Kavouss. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Yes, I am not thinking of treaty status or anything like that. I think that the discussion's turned around, in my view. Three issues. How to implement Internet public policy issues, roles and responsibilities of each player. One. Two, mechanism. And three, participation. If you have another one, you identify it. Once you identify that, people interested try to sit down and write something, perhaps you have two models, two positions, or three models, but someone wants to have 25, no problem if we have 25 or 35. It depends how many you produce. But I thought we might have two or three. But first you have to come up with topics. I don't see more than that. I think this paper is turning around to three, how to implement Internet public policy issues, roles and responsibilities of each player. Two is mechanism and three is the participation. That's all. And we should sit down and write people is interested either together or two different groups or three different groups or ten different groups, write down something and just present it to discussions. Whether put it in the report or annex, I don't think that we have anything more than this, so what the report would be? The report as we get to it here, have tea and coffee and so on and so forth and produce this. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for reminding me of tea and coffee. ( Laughter ) But we are not there yet. I understand your subconscious. Before I give the floor to Parminder we have to think about the readers who are going to read the report, and I would like to ask you very humbly to try and limit the number of opinions to two or three at most. But if you go beyond that, then I don't think that readers will take it very seriously. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Taking forward the (indiscernible) parts, which is emerging by interventions by my colleagues and the summing up and also points made by the Chair, I think we -- we need to understand why we are at this stage when we are looking at possibly two or three different opinions. And after understanding that limit our divergences to the small set of things rather than have three or four separate reports. And we would agree after four meetings that there is some developments which comes when you talk every day public policy issues. We agree they are very important. We agree they need to be solved and addressed. But when you come to this point of, you know, a new mechanism or strengthening existing mechanisms, you kind of get into a touchy area -- get into trouble. And I think that's a core point at which alone we -- we should remind the divergences and then concentrate on common points in the report. And therefore, if we can develop two or three models and I'll come to that number later, will we see that after having agreed that they're important public policy issues, they're global in nature, we need to do something about it. Then (indiscernible) and say okay, this is one set of people who think that this is what needs to be done, which is perhaps in nature of some mechanisms, and others who say no, this is the way existing mechanisms have to be strengthened. And I would expect that either one is very practical, implementable, and so on about if somebody wants to understand existing mechanisms, how to do it, whether they want to put a core condition in the mechanism, whether it's not just (indiscernible) or information sharing, et cetera, et cetera. You write here about that heart of the matter, one, one and a half page each, and then again carry on with common elements which all we agree on participation of developing countries has to be increased, stakeholder participation has to be increased, the roles have to be identified better. There are many such things it would be much easier to have a good text, which is common. And now, once we identify this is the reason we are splitting one part of the report, we could also get (indiscernible) how many. And I think if you go back to having 30 submissions, it would be like the initial input stage where each of us told what we really want. And here we want to at least do some convergence work. We agree that we are not able on certain points to converge to one. But if we converge to two or three, we will have done some work. That energy and that purpose is needed. And if we just go back and say each of us really have a different view, but if we don't even do one step of work we will not have contributed something important in this meeting. So meeting the numbers -- and we can -- by participation say only two views. If somebody says no, my view is different from these two views, then perhaps the third view. But effort should be collectively to converge two kinds of views of different -- at least give them -- the people are going to consider write a report two set of options and there are certain kind of body (indiscernible) about it. I agree that it's different from the GAC because it was an expert group and this is a members based group, but still Chair said this would be considered by CSTD and by ECOSOC. And it will be a lot of General Assembly seeing that you have two ways of doing things. You just have to send one thing. But since you are fitting into two different processes, two sets would perhaps be better as you go up and they can resolve into a single set. Lastly, whether we should have names associated with each set of opinions or it should be general, I'm again open, but I think it would be fair to say that this group had divergences and these were two or three sets of groups. Even if I don't agree with that group, to say that there were three groups would still be a statement of fact. But I'm fine either way if there are names associated with each process and not just mention model 1, 2, and 3, which we can consider in the later part of this meeting. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I really appreciate your optimism concerning CSTD, ECOSOC and United Nations merging or coming up -- or downsizing the number, but let's be optimistic. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. And apologies for taking the microphone again. I agree with your statement. I think we do need to respect the poor reader in all of this, and I think that should be borne in mind when we're developing opinions going forward. I think if we are to go down this road of developing opinions, I don't think we should be constrained in the nature of the opinions to be submitted nor in the approach that a particular opinion takes. I think whilst having a general format or a general size of document may be useful, I think you've got to allow flexible to ensure that the variations and the nuances of various positions are expressed. I'm hoping that that might lead to some agreement in some places. But I don't think we should try and constrain what is said or what is not said going forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. As a fourth vote, naturally I do not want to constrain the opinions themselves. However, probably it would be nice to have some kind of similar approach, in formulating the opinions, to have a kind of similar format in submitting these opinions. And I really rely on you to find out this is the case. USA wanted to take the floor. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions and concerns on behalf of the U.S. I'd like to start, if I may, with a question to you, and perhaps you could respond at some point. I guess my understanding at previous meetings, we discussed the nature of a Chairman's report and perhaps how that might attempt to capture differences of opinion in the room on issues where we were unable to reach consensus on. Obviously there's advantages and disadvantages of doing that, and we have these opinions. I just wanted to check in with you to see if you could assess your concerns about that or your ability to accurately reflect the visions of the opinions in this room over the course of these several meetings. Would agree with the statement of previous speakers that there are probably more than two opinions on all of these issues. I'm concerned that trying to limit the number to two or three, it's a difficult task in itself. Also just as a -- a side note, we did, everyone I think in this room and many other people submitted responses to questionnaires which in fact went into great length to express their opinions on these issues, which is a valuable resource that we can continue to draw on. I'm not sure that boiling it down to a page or two is -- is possible or is a better move compared to those lengthy questionnaires. I agree with you to the extent that the opinions do need to be scoped and we need to be pretty clear on exactly what we're addressing here. I'm not sure right now if we're talking about just A and B or the entirety of the issues we've discussed here. Would also just like to express some concern about the difficulty of doing this in a day or two. I think we'd have a difficult time at the U.S. government getting clearance just amongst yourselves on a document, let alone finding other partners to agree and then to clear on everything as well. I'm concerned also about the absence of some members of this working group who are not here, governments and other stakeholders as well. Particularly those who have contributed quite strongly to meetings in the past and were unable to attend this meeting. I'm worried about the -- the absence of their views to be reflected in these opinions. And then finally, another question for you, Mr. Chairman, just what -- at this point what do we make of the recommendation, are these opinions going to be a full substitute for any recommendations? Are we going to continue to work on recommendations on perhaps ones we thought we were getting close to or are those completely out the window now? Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Definitely you don't make my life easier, do you? You have very delicate questions. I think the first one was on my capacity of being able to draft a report and have the opinions reflected in the report. I think I'm still capable of doing that. If the group wishes to have these opinions reflected in my report or if you trust me enough to reflect your opinions in my report, I'm ready to do that. This solution would provide you I submit some facility not to ask for clearance from back home because it's less -- it's the Chair's report. But it's really up to you. If you want to have it in the group's report, which I still think we should do, and the core of this report should be the recommendations as we are mandated to do, then it's -- as I said, it's up to you. Now, as for the scope of the opinions and having as many opinions as is needed, I have nothing against. I just caution you that if we have too many then we have none. So that's why if we try to keep it in a manageable size, then I think it's better. As for the members who have contributed actively up to now but they are absent, I have all the sympathy for that but probably we have to complete our work during this session and report to the CSTD. So I fully agree with you that probably these opinions should be taken on board as well, but I'm afraid we can't do much better than that. As for the rich contributions we received from -- as responses to the question have we tried our best and a large part has been reflected already, I think, in the living document of the correspondence group, and I stress the word "living document" because probably it will be took on in some way either by the Secretariat or by CSTD, but this is also a decision of the CSTD on how we are going to handle it. So what I really want you to do is, I think it's time to have as -- I have been asked to think about coffee or tea break. During this coffee or tea break, please try and get together, find out how many opinions you'd like to reflect, either in the report or in the Chair's report, and come out with some kind of scope and form what the opinions would look like. And as it has been mentioned, I think it's a voluntary work, and I sincerely hope that once we have that we can proceed with the real work of our mandate that is to give recommendations. So I think we can have a 20-minute break now, and I encourage you to get together and form your groups and come up with some definite results. Thank you. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I ask you to take your seats for a few seconds? [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I'm happy to see you are in good mood. Welcome back to the meeting after 20 minutes' tea or coffee break, which was about 50 minutes ago. >> (off microphone.) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I will be very short and brief. One administrative request, as I have indicated to you at the beginning of the meeting, to put down your email addresses. For those of you who are not registered for the Google Doc documents, the secretariat can register you for that. That's Point 1. That was the administrative information. The second thing, before the break we kind of agreed that we are going to formulate -- like-minded groups are going to formulate a statement, slash, opinions. We shall decide whatever we are going to call it. So I can sense that this is a kind of important issue for many of the members of the group, and probably I think, in case we can get through formulating these opinions, we can go back to the core of the -- of our mandate and formulate recommendations. So at this point of time, I think I would like to stop the meeting in the plenary way and I would like to encourage you to use the remaining time -- probably the room is available up to 9:00 -- with the notion that there is a soccer match tonight, Chelsea-Atletico Madrid today. It starts at 9:00, if I'm not mistaken. So for those of you who have other interests as well, which I can't really imagine that you have other interests than Internet governance and enhanced cooperation, so -- but in the exceptional case, so there's this match which you may like to watch. USA, you wanted to take the floor. >>UNITED STATES: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My good friend, Mr. Chairman, I think you're going to like me a lot after this intervention. [ Laughter ] >>UNITED STATES: You know, I mentioned before the break some of the concerns we have as a government about this route that has been proposed. I don't think it's been agreed to. The route that's been proposed about having opinions. And after discussing it with our delegation, we would actually -- we think it's a better, more appropriate route, for you as the chairman to attempt in your report to reflect the nature of arguments in this working group from its onset, do the best to capture where there are areas of agreement, the areas of disagreement, and capture that in your report. We trust you. You've been an able chairman and we think that given the mandate of this group, where opinions of state -- these opinions that never came into the mandate, we think the questionnaires already reflect their opinions on this. They can stand on their own. We ask you, then, Mr. Chairman to include in your chairman's report the nature of discussions in this group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. As I indicated, I have nothing against including it in my report if the group agrees to that, and naturally I'm capable of doing it, provided you give me input. And irrespective in whatever form we are going to do it, I think the way forward is what has been indicated by the delegation of India to come up with these concise opinions, and in case there's a wish to have it in my report, it will be included in my report. In case we have no agreement on that, then we shall discuss it. Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. We, too, are a little bit concerned about where we're heading now, and we have two more days before -- of this meeting, and after that we should report to the CSTD on our mandate. And our mandate is to make recommendations on how to implement enhanced cooperation, and I don't think that's where this work is leading us at all, actually. Instead of trying to reach consensus and spend the next two days on trying to reach consensus on some recommendations, it seems that we should focus our energy on formulating divergent views and opinions, and that's not a good way of utilizing the two days that we have left, so we also think that it would be much preferred to have -- to give the task to you, Chairman, to reflect in the report in a factual and a high-level manner that there were some views -- that there were some issues on which we had divergent views. We think that's a much better way to move forward than to task ourselves with drafting maybe rather maximalist positions on certain issues and have that reflected in the report. We think that it's really -- really not within the mandate of this group and so we support the intervention by the U.S. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So you want to increase my workload. Okay. Mexico? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. I think Japan was first. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Oh. Okay. Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to support U.S. and Sweden's proposal because we have limited time so we have to focus on making recommendations, so I think we should not take time to develop opinions and diversity of opinions should be reflected in the report of the working group, so we should focus on making recommendations and to reach consensus. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Mexico? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. I would like to also add my voice to some of the previous colleagues that are saying that we are really wondering whether the way forward that you put we have in front of us is the best one, and for my delegation, it's very difficult to make recommendations because our recommendations are already in this document and we are flexible enough to try to accommodate some of our concerns in others' proposals, and if we are not going to negotiate and if some others are not willing to negotiate and be flexible enough, then we'd rather trust you to reflect in your report our views, and there is nothing else we can do, and thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think since the first meeting, all of us came here with good faith to develop a set of recommendations, and at the last meeting, as we showed, the divergence got larger and larger and larger and this option was flagged since the last meeting, where I think there was a majority of agreement there is no consensus number of models will be included in the report. So I don't see this -- that this option now is a surprise to many of the members. It was, I mean, flagged last meeting. If there is no consensus on the major issues, as stated by either delegate drafting the report with no much recommendation in how to implement enhanced cooperation, it's only words on papers. We don't need this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. You know that we like you very much and we don't want to bother you and we don't want to give you such a big responsibility, although you might have wider shoulders, but we don't want -- we want to share everything with you but not giving everything to you as related to the report on behalf of us in your colleague -- chairman's report or chairman's summary, because the resolution does not ask for the chairman's summary. It's a report of the meeting. And it would be good if we can have on any point consensus. So far so good. But if we cannot, we could not make a miracle and we could not invent anything. If, on the main subject, we don't have consensus, on the subset, consensus has no real meaning. So first we have to have how to handle the enhanced cooperation with respect to the Internet public policy issues including the roles and responsibilities of government and so on and so forth. And the second one is the mechanisms. We have to see what are the mechanisms that we have -- multistakeholder, multilateral mechanisms -- and then the responsibilities and the definitions, footing -- Third one is participation. In third one, which is a subset of the two, we may arrive at something that's participation but also that one goes to the first one, when you talk about multistakeholder. If you have difficulty how to define multistakeholder, how could we talk about the participation of multistakeholder? So that is the -- see, they are connected to each other. But I think we have no problems to have the various views, different positions, and so on and so forth. Should people believe that we could have some consensus on the multistakeholder mechanism or multistakeholderisms, we try, but I don't see that one. What we don't want to mention that we come to here after several meetings saying that, "Okay, we recommend to each other to dialogue." There is no need for any recommendations under everything, including the human rights. We are free to dial up with anybody and everybody. We don't need any recommendations because it weakens the essence of the dialogue if you recommend, because the recommendation, you make take it or not take it, so I don't think that we should go with the dialogue and so on. Thank you very much, Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. I wanted to support Japan and Mexico and others who expressed skepticism at this process. I'm afraid that it puts our energy into articulating our differences and not working on our common ground, and frankly will be a reiteration of what people have put in -- both in the questionnaire and in the recommendations. I just don't see people saying new things. They're going to say the same things they've said and we know what they are. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. India? Oh, Nigeria. Sorry. >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, there are issues that seem to be a cog in the wheel of progress, and when we come to interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, Paragraph 69, at times make reference to it as a Constitution, forgetting that there are Paragraphs 70 and 71 that actually should have some kind of flexibility in that area. In a situation whereby we may think that (indiscernible) saying anything about Internet matters is an exclusive precept of government and any policy that will not -- make government not to be at the helm of affairs will probably dictate what happens on the Internet may not be -- [ Scribes have lost audio ] -- to the, for example, the General Assembly, I do not see how the Chair summary that we go from this working group can be nothing but a factual report of the meetings that have taken place and a clear recommendation that no recommendations could be made by the working group without attributing the differences of opinion because they're already contained in the Web site, they're already in the same argument which some of the colleagues have put forward. By the same token, the Chair should merely state the facts, that so many meetings held, these are the dates, we tried very hard, too bad we couldn't make recommendations, hence that is the report of the chair, if there is a Chair's report, and that is the direction which we are planning to go. I don't think there's any option and those commenting on the merits of the opinions, because they are contained in the various contributions that have been made by members in this group and there have been commentaries on it and there have been interventions by members in this working group as well as those observers, as well as remote participants, they're all available to us. After that I don't think there's any further need to compress that into an opinion of the Chair. It should merely be a statement of fact, if that is the direction the working group is asked to go. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I just want to reflect on what you said. I'll be surprised by the pessimism you expressed. As you know, I'm still optimistic. I'm optimistic that we are going to achieve and we shall fulfill our mandate. As for the report itself, I know the wording of the UNGA resolution. I chaired the previous working group on improvements of -- on -- of the IGF which had the same wording, and on this occasion it was my report which was presented to the CSTD with the recommendations. So the factual information which was contained in the report was supplemented by some descriptive information and followed by the recommendations. So it wasn't clear at that time and it's still not clear how -- what is meant by the working group report. At that time the group gave me the mandate to draft it, and I have heard voices here as well to -- that say trust me. I had words -- even -- I didn't hear any comments about mistrust. But more seriously, in whatever way we are going to move forward, it would be useful, I think, that we had these opinions or statements, even though we had them extensively on the Web site, we have it from transcripts, we have it in the recordings, but it would be nice to have some in a written form, in a short form. And I didn't hear any objection against that, except that you need clearance, which is -- I understand is a very substantial argument. But first, I think we should try it. We should try it and in any case, in any case, if it comes to the option that I'm going to write these divergence opinions, I'm going to rely on the transcripts and on the recordings. So basically the only thing I ask from you is do it for me. That's how I see things now. I heard also quite a strong wish to clear the obstacles from formulating recommendations by means of having these opinions because I was told that the main obstacle to formulate, to come to a common agreement on details, on recommendations, is the fact that we don't have an agreement or we don't have a clear view of differences on some kind of basic issues. So that's why I thought that it was kind of agreed by many of the members to go in this way. Now, I can see that not all of you would like to do that. So I am a bit perplexed. Because, in fact, I didn't ask for a great thing. I just wanted to ask you to write down your opinions about basic issues. Nothing else. So I could see Sweden and India. >>SWEDEN: And thank you, Chairman. Unfortunately, I think we would have to disagree with part of your summary because I think, first of all, some delegations just raised concerns about this way forward with drafting opinions by different groupings, expressing divergent views and emphasizing contradictions because that's, in fact, what we will be doing most probably and that's not within our mandate and it's also not within the spirit of the working method of this working group. I think it was made clear from the beginning a year ago that we were supposed to work by consensus and so that our target, our objective, was to achieve consensus recommendations. So I think there were some divergent views on this actually. And it's not only not necessarily a good usage of our time and against our mandate, but it's also putting emphasis on contradictions within the group and that can -- in our opinion, that would not be very beneficial for the process forward and for the CSTD when the CSTD and the ECOSOC should evaluate what's the -- what's the contributions of the -- and the results of this work. We also question whether or not there is common understanding in the room that just because that we have stated positions on some issues that we will be able to -- that that would facilitate our work with recommendations on some issues. Because I think there are divergent views here. There are those that think maybe some categories, some of the five categories are more core to -- more of the core of the enhanced cooperation than others. And then there is another opinion that we share and that's that all these five categories should be treated equally and they're equally important for enhanced cooperation. So that goes back to the very understanding of the concept of enhanced cooperation and we have been discussing that at length as well. Then finally, I think it's not as easy as it sounds just to go -- go away and write statements without knowing on exactly what these statements should be about, how they should be used, where they should be reflected, and whether or not there will be attribution to those statements or not. So there are a lot of outstanding questions also regarding the -- the way forward, if we were to go down this path to -- to spend the rest of our time here this week trying to carve out our differences and our contradictions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Per. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to take the floor again, but just to mention that I have a copy of the report of the working group on improvements of Internet Governance Forum. It is indeed a report prepared by the chair. But that is -- took all the recommendations the report has been prepared. But the chair summaries of each of the working groups sessions have been listed as attachments. Available at a particular Web site. But what potentially the report contains is the recommendations of the working group. So I just thought it's useful to have clarification that -- what can be part of the chairman's report or chairman's summary because if we are unable to make recommendations, I -- we fully understand that there's a challenge and I think we all want to go in a different direction, that's why India suggested a way out at the very early stages of this meeting, so that looking at the large interest that we all have in success of this working group, that we agree on few but -- vaguely but we state that what are the requirements and therefore be able to move forward. If that approach is not something which is not a way to do -- go forward, then I'm afraid as to -- to see any qualitative report -- we can have a quantitative report but not a qualitative report of the chair. So that's the challenge which I think we should recognize. And we would be very keen to see as to what would go into the Chair summary, which will be eventually submitted to the CSTD. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for reminding me of the report, which is my report which I completely forgot. However, you reminded me of a very important part, and in fact, it's a report which has followed the way you described. And we had also groups of recommendations and we had a chapeau for the groups. And, in fact, the chapeau was kind of capturing the essence of the topic itself. And even though the task was much simpler in that working group, though at that time it didn't feel it, we felt that we are overwhelmed by the enormity of the task but compared to this one, it was a simple task. So getting back to the chapeau, I had the honor of writing the chapeau. So if this is the way forward, and in the hope that we are going to have recommendations, I'm ready to do it again, to formulate in a chapeau for each group the possible approaches to tackle that group of issues which are under the heading of the five headings we have. So I leave it to you to decide if this is the way forward and the way out. Because right now I think we are in a stalemate. Saudi Arabia. You're on. Yeah. >>IRAN: Saudi Arabia start with A, so first Saudi Arabia. Iran start with I. After A. Thank you. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Okay, Mr. Arasteh is older than me somewhat. [ Laughter ] I mean, this practice is kind of confusing us, our Saudi delegation. The process isn't very clear now. We would take the legal adviser's opinions on the Hungary resolution, what is our working group report, who will write the working group report, and these issues attached to the Hungary resolution mandate to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. We have seen or we have witnessed many, many other meetings. It will be extremely difficult, even Chairman's summary that be properly reflecting what has happened. There's no point to all the discussion of tossed or not tossed. The problem is that you are a human being and you have a taste of the word, choose or selection of the word and any adjective you use may be subject to various interpretations. So we suggest that you just -- as to our different views, you reflect a different view, then your report will be very simple. Distinguished Chairman of the CSTD please find attached the various views expressed at the meeting with respect to the following topics and put the topics, enhanced cooperation implementation, according to WSIS and the second would be multistakeholder -- I'm sorry, (indiscernible) implemented and that would be how to -- and fourth would enhance or -- foster the participation, that's all. Any -- any -- any attempt that you try to put would be misinterpreted in one way or the other. You have seen that in the WSIS forum. There was problems and so on and so forth. So we don't want to prepare any ground to criticize you. We want to have you as a good friend and always be in the safe side and not to having subject to any criticism for any side. It will be very difficult for you, Chairman. So I don't think that you should try to have that one as the Chairman's views and so on and so forth. Your views, you can tell it to the CSTD personally, this is your views, verbally or orally but I don't think that any written form. It would be extremely difficult. If you could have any consensus, so far, so good. I don't think there are any grounds for consensus. If there is any, okay, let's do. If not, different views, different positions or whatever different models, different -- I don't think what you call them. And that is that. I don't think you could invent anything. And it would be difficult if we leave it to you as you prepare your Chairman's report, Chairman's views and so on and so forth. Difficult. Misinterpretation, we have that. I'm sorry, I didn't want to give any practical example of that. Please accept that. Otherwise it would be problems if I quote any particular meeting. We have been in many meetings. We know what has happened. A lot of has happened. Chairman, you are dealing with one of the most serious, most delicate subjects of this booklet. So it would be extremely difficult for you to report any board or Chairman views. You give your own views and we cannot share them. And we don't want to say these views are not shared by X and Y. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I don't expect that the outcome of this meeting would end our friendship, and I trust that this is true for all of you. But in a more serious tone, I think we have come now to a stalemate. I would like to stop here. I would like to give you some time to think about how to -- how to come out of this. I expect you back by 9:00 tomorrow. You may use your time in whatever way you'd like to. Those of you who would like to form your opinions, do not hesitate to do that. We have a few who would like to have a clearance. Do not hesitate to make a phone call. And those of you who would like to watch the soccer match, feel free to do it. Thank you. See you tomorrow. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFTfinal report-140501 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29670 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 02:30:10 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 15:30:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <53633537.60708@acm.org> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> Message-ID: <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. Thanks again, Adam On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > > We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > fundamental disagreement: > > - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > > - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. > > Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > needs further discussion. > > The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > > - among governments > > - among all stakeholders. > > One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > > - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > > - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. > > Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > point in day 3. > > As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > some some arguing: > > - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > there seem to be some such points > > - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > > At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > points they had just accepted. > > We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > > - a chair's report > > - a WG group > > Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > > A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > > A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > > - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > > - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > > Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > > Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > discussions are in todays' world. > > Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > underlay our discussions. > > avri > > PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > correct or amplify this quick report. > <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri May 2 03:46:32 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 09:46:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <53634D58.2090506@acm.org> Hi, sometimes tweets are reflective. and sometime we object to what we see in the mirror. avri On 02-May-14 08:30, Adam Peake wrote: > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays > discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions > during the meeting. Good luck today. > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can > see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify > with the chair. > > Thanks again, > > Adam > > > On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least >> half a day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. >> >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While >> the report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point >> of fundamental disagreement: >> >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document >> >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, >> now lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to >> fill the gaps. >> >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed >> and needs further discussion. >> >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, >> especially the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: >> >> - among governments >> >> - among all stakeholders. >> >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and >> women's participation in the Internet governance as part of >> Enhanced Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the >> discussion: >> >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing >> the real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between >> governments and a new body wherein those discussions can be held >> >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all >> stakeholders. >> >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion >> went on as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will >> resurface at some point in day 3. >> >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including >> these models in the document. This discussion continued the second >> day with some some arguing: >> >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus >> on, and there seem to be some such points >> >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. >> >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of >> the points they had just accepted. >> >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would >> have" >> >> - a chair's report >> >> - a WG group >> >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and >> is likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. >> >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's >> discussions >> >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments >> have begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these >> oppositional problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder >> discussion. There is every chance that a final oppositional >> impression is being set up: >> >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs >> more a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve >> >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure >> >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers >> of the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this >> discussion. >> >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for >> using twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, >> this showed how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis >> Agenda driven discussions are in todays' world. >> >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression >> and free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions >> that underlay our discussions. >> >> avri >> >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these >> lists can correct or amplify this quick report. >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>> report-140501>____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri May 2 04:53:31 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 14:23:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Adam and all, The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue. Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective. Best, Anja On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I > think this accurately captures the state of play. > > One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC > should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the > mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the > Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also > strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over > into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). > > Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there > are two likely options: > 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD > Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. > 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. > > Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an > independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for > assessment (currently absent). > > Stay tuned. > > Lea > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays > discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the > meeting. Good luck today. > > > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see > who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the > chair. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Adam > > > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > >> > >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > >> fundamental disagreement: > >> > >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > >> > >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the > gaps. > >> > >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > >> needs further discussion. > >> > >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > >> > >> - among governments > >> > >> - among all stakeholders. > >> > >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > >> > >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > >> > >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all > stakeholders. > >> > >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > >> point in day 3. > >> > >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > >> some some arguing: > >> > >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > >> there seem to be some such points > >> > >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > >> > >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > >> points they had just accepted. > >> > >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > >> > >> - a chair's report > >> > >> - a WG group > >> > >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > >> > >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > >> > >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > >> > >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > >> > >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > >> > >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > >> > >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > >> discussions are in todays' world. > >> > >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > >> underlay our discussions. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > >> correct or amplify this quick report. > >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt> report-140501>____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 05:29:25 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:29:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> Message-ID: <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Anja. Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live transcript (which has the USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) Adam On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi Adam and all, > > The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. > > By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: > > Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language > > As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. > > I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue. > > Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. > > For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective. > > Best, > Anja > > > > > > > On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I think this accurately captures the state of play. > > One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). > > Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there are two likely options: > 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. > 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. > > Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for assessment (currently absent). > > Stay tuned. > > Lea > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. > > > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Adam > > > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > >> > >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > >> fundamental disagreement: > >> > >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > >> > >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. > >> > >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > >> needs further discussion. > >> > >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > >> > >> - among governments > >> > >> - among all stakeholders. > >> > >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > >> > >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > >> > >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. > >> > >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > >> point in day 3. > >> > >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > >> some some arguing: > >> > >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > >> there seem to be some such points > >> > >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > >> > >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > >> points they had just accepted. > >> > >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > >> > >> - a chair's report > >> > >> - a WG group > >> > >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > >> > >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > >> > >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > >> > >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > >> > >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > >> > >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > >> > >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > >> discussions are in todays' world. > >> > >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > >> underlay our discussions. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > >> correct or amplify this quick report. > >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Fri May 2 05:44:26 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 06:44:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Thanks Avri for the excellent report and powerful interactions through out the day. I guess the rule of the day here is: tweet The expectations... very low. Major question since the results from NetMundial is how to bring groundbreaking parts of the outcome text to be debated in the UN system. In the WGEC, we clearly failed so far. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Anja. > > Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. > > Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live > transcript (which has the > USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM > IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) > > Adam > > > > On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi Adam and all, > > > > The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are > taken out of context in the tweets. > > > > By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an > observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the > tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: > > > > Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive > stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language > > > > As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating > endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full > and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be > too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal > participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is > "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot > quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. > > > > I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this > issue. > > > > Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object > to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions > about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these > processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly > comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these > are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes > against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated > reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the > people, I find this discomfort interesting. > > > > For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to > existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat > reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder > environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial > process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most > effective. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, > I think this accurately captures the state of play. > > > > One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC > should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the > mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the > Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also > strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over > into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). > > > > Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, > there are two likely options: > > 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD > Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. > > 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. > > > > Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an > independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for > assessment (currently absent). > > > > Stay tuned. > > > > Lea > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays > discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the > meeting. Good luck today. > > > > > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see > who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the > chair. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > > >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half > a > > >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > > >> > > >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While > the > > >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > > >> fundamental disagreement: > > >> > > >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > > >> > > >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > > >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the > gaps. > > >> > > >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed > and > > >> needs further discussion. > > >> > > >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > > >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > > >> > > >> - among governments > > >> > > >> - among all stakeholders. > > >> > > >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > > >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and > women's > > >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > > >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > > >> > > >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > > >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > > >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > > >> > > >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all > stakeholders. > > >> > > >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went > on > > >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > > >> point in day 3. > > >> > > >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > > >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including > these > > >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > > >> some some arguing: > > >> > > >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, > and > > >> there seem to be some such points > > >> > > >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > > >> > > >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > > >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > > >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > > >> points they had just accepted. > > >> > > >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > > >> > > >> - a chair's report > > >> > > >> - a WG group > > >> > > >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > > >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > > >> > > >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > > >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > > >> > > >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > > >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these > oppositional > > >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. > There > > >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > > >> > > >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs > more > > >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > > >> > > >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > > >> > > >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > > >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > > >> > > >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > > >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this > showed > > >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > > >> discussions are in todays' world. > > >> > > >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression > and > > >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > > >> underlay our discussions. > > >> > > >> avri > > >> > > >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists > can > > >> correct or amplify this quick report. > > >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt> report-140501>____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri May 2 05:47:27 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 06:47:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <536369AF.7010609@cafonso.ca> We will of course not stop tweeting now that the meeting is almost over... --c.a. On 05/02/2014 06:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Anja. > > Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. > > Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live transcript (which has the USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) > > Adam > > > > On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> Hi Adam and all, >> >> The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. >> >> By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: >> >> Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language >> >> As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. >> >> I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue. >> >> Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. >> >> For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I think this accurately captures the state of play. >> >> One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). >> >> Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there are two likely options: >> 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. >> 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. >> >> Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for assessment (currently absent). >> >> Stay tuned. >> >> Lea >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: >>> >>> Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. >>> >>> About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed >>>> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a >>>> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. >>>> >>>> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the >>>> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of >>>> fundamental disagreement: >>>> >>>> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document >>>> >>>> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now >>>> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. >>>> >>>> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and >>>> needs further discussion. >>>> >>>> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially >>>> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: >>>> >>>> - among governments >>>> >>>> - among all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include >>>> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's >>>> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced >>>> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: >>>> >>>> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the >>>> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments >>>> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held >>>> >>>> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on >>>> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some >>>> point in day 3. >>>> >>>> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced >>>> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these >>>> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with >>>> some some arguing: >>>> >>>> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and >>>> there seem to be some such points >>>> >>>> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. >>>> >>>> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only >>>> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would >>>> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the >>>> points they had just accepted. >>>> >>>> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" >>>> >>>> - a chair's report >>>> >>>> - a WG group >>>> >>>> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is >>>> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. >>>> >>>> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is >>>> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions >>>> >>>> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have >>>> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional >>>> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There >>>> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: >>>> >>>> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more >>>> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve >>>> >>>> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure >>>> >>>> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of >>>> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. >>>> >>>> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using >>>> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed >>>> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven >>>> discussions are in todays' world. >>>> >>>> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and >>>> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that >>>> underlay our discussions. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can >>>> correct or amplify this quick report. >>>> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 08:58:47 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Dear Parminder, To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. Please act immediately. Thank you, Adam >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. Tunis Agenda 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 2 09:42:37 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 15:42:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger today. Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal construct through which this human right is established is via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic processes is established. I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of totally non-democratic states here. I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake : > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > > >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > YOU. > >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > technical and public policy issues and should involve all > stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 2 10:01:28 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:01:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. Rafik Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > today. > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > construct through which this human right is established is via the > public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > right to democratic processes is established. > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > schrieb Adam Peake : > >> Dear Parminder, >> >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >> oppose paragraph 35. >> >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >> >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >> >> Please act immediately. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Adam >> >> >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>> MAKING. >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >> YOU. >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >> >> Tunis Agenda >> >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >> policies. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 10:11:00 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:11:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: Norbert thanks, however: On May 2, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > Correct. > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > today. > Absolutely not correct, follow the proceedings of the ongoing CSTD working group and it is very clear the positions of many governments have not changed since Geneva in 2003 -- allies in Parminder's position include Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. These days they even deny basic gender rights. > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > construct through which this human right is established is via the > public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > right to democratic processes is established. > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > He spoke against an agreed and very longstanding civil society position, one that was affirmed only last week. He should retract his statement. People who wish to represent civil society should not be siding with "totally non-democratic states" on such fundamental issues. Adam > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > schrieb Adam Peake : > >> Dear Parminder, >> >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >> oppose paragraph 35. >> >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >> >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >> >> Please act immediately. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Adam >> >> >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>> MAKING. >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >> YOU. >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >> >> Tunis Agenda >> >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >> policies. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 2 10:19:33 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 19:49:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <042501cf6611$8c580690$a50813b0$@hserus.net> +1 I hope the other civil society representatives on the WG immediately reiterated their opposition to paragraph 35? thanks suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:29 PM > To: parminder > Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on > enhanced cooperation > > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph > 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It > was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was > unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As > recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil > society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil > society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this > language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi > Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and > responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so > before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis > Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > > >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, > THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO > JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES > SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN > VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. > AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH > IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC > POLICY MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE > ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I > DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN > DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE > ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. > THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL > ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC > POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN > RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, > WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. > IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS > EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS > IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. > >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and > relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect > it is recognized that: > a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the > sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > international Internet-related public policy issues. > b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role > in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > fields. > c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. > d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a > facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy > issues. > e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an > important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and > relevant policies. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 2 10:22:55 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 19:52:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <042a01cf6612$048281e0$0d8785a0$@hserus.net> I will partially agree with you when you say that a viable alternative should be provided - including for existing and working multistakeholder processes that civil society sometimes criticizes as not being particularly open. HOWEVER, article 35 is a dangerous lever in the hands of those governments whose stand has not perceptibly changed in the past ten years, and who continue to oppose multistakeholderism of any form, in favour of multilateral governance, with business and/or civil society only providing ancillary, enabling roles rather than having a true stake at the table. I fully support the call that this endorsement be repudiated. -srs > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 7:13 PM > To: Adam Peake > Cc: parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD > working group on enhanced cooperation > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > today. > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed > (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could > give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the > peoples to democratic self-determination. > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > construct through which this human right is established is via the public > policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to > self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic > processes is established. > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of > democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it > before a proven alternative is available. > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every > time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in > Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of > totally non-democratic states here. > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > Dear Parminder, > > > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > > Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > > Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > > knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > > Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > > oppose paragraph 35. > > > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > > civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should > > support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > > business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > > and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > > time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > > > Please act immediately. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Adam > > > > > > >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > > >>DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > > >>RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > > >>RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > > >>TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY > > >>MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND > > >>ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS > > >>IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > > >>PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > > >>MAKING. > > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > > IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > > ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE > > THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT > > SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US > > TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I > > SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES > > AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC > > POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO > > THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND > > THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS > > PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY > > BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > > BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > > THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > > YOU. > > >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > > > Tunis Agenda > > > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > > technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders > > and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In > > this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for > > Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of > > States. They have rights and responsibilities for international > > Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, > > and should continue to have, an important role in the development of > > the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil > > society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a > > role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue > > to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related > > public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and > > should continue to have an important role in the development of > > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 2 10:25:37 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 19:55:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <042f01cf6612$659e4770$30dad650$@hserus.net> Perfect, Rafik. I thank you for making those points. The language in section 35 simply drives a wedge apart between entities that should cooperate and work together. It is unfortunately supported by governments that want to exclude civil society entirely, and industry to some limited extent .. and it unfortunately gets supported by some minority but extremely vocal sections of civil society that want to completely exclude industry players .. and so end up making common cause with governments that are strident advocates of multilateralism. -suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Rafik > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 7:31 PM > To: Norbert Bollow > Cc: Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD > working group on enhanced cooperation > > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many > times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A > position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I > guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector > involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, > preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are > mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that > Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian > citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of > people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non > democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will > silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their > policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing > region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to > not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I > will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than > their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending > cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real > > danger today. > > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the > > legal construct through which this human right is established is via > > the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the > > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document > > the right to democratic processes is established. > > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > >> Dear Parminder, > >> > >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >> oppose paragraph 35. > >> > >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >> > >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >> > >> Please act immediately. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>> MAKING. > >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >> YOU. > >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >> > >> Tunis Agenda > >> > >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >> policies. > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 2 11:25:15 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a link to. I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector, for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different countries choose to adopt different public policy options. In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national parliaments so that the choice between different public policy possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible information. In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and more blurred. Greetings, Norbert Rafik wrote: > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing > many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having > any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having > role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems > with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having > SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match > democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really > think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really > representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are > mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The > state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the > world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any > possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from > developing region to participate in such process , but at least I > have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the > marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts > giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are > defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real > > danger today. > > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the > > legal construct through which this human right is established is > > via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the > > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the > > document the right to democratic processes is established. > > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want > > to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract > > anything. > > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as > > those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > >> Dear Parminder, > >> > >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration > >> of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary > >> in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week > >> in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >> oppose paragraph 35. > >> > >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself > >> with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >> > >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on > >> roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. > >> You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later > >> today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >> > >> Please act immediately. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE > >>>> SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT > >>>> SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE > >>>> ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE > >>>> TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT > >>>> OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER > >>>> SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND > >>>> THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED > >>>> COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS > >>>> SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT > >> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT > >> TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS > >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN > >> GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL > >> LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER > >> IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT > >> PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE > >> SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE > >> PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK > >> ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN > >> EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT > >> IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE > >> SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE > >> ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES > >> COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE > >> THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. > >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >> > >> Tunis Agenda > >> > >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses > >> both technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the > >> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities > >> for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The > >> private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important > >> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and > >> economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important > >> role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and > >> should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental > >> organizations have had, and should continue to have, a > >> facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public > >> policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and > >> should continue to have an important role in the development of > >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Fri May 2 11:37:14 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:37:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. You have the floor on this. JC Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri May 2 11:51:44 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:51:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! See below but in short, here are the best parts: - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". No thanks! JC From McKinsey The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. The role of companies as citizens The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 2 12:08:14 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:08:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <20140502180814.209de0a6@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > He spoke against an agreed and very longstanding civil society > position, one that was affirmed only last week. Please provide a link or links with detailed information on 1) what you claim was affirmed last week, and on 2) though what process it was affirmed. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 2 12:11:43 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:11:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , Message-ID: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. In my always humble opinion : ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM To: Rafik; Adam Peake Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! See below but in short, here are the best parts: - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". No thanks! JC From McKinsey The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. The role of companies as citizens The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : Hi Norbert, If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. Rafik Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow > a écrit : TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger today. Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal construct through which this human right is established is via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic processes is established. I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of totally non-democratic states here. I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake >: Dear Parminder, To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. Please act immediately. Thank you, Adam PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. Tunis Agenda 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri May 2 12:38:43 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:08:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1C8611E4-2EF9-4399-A50E-A69DAA30D0CA@hserus.net> The current "ms blah" as you so dismissively put it engages with far more industry, civil society and government stakeholders on a day to day basis than most members of this caucus do, individually or as part of their organizations. So a democratic, according to you, system, is one that marginalizes such "kindergarten" people and organizations? --srs (iPad) > On 02-May-2014, at 21:07, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > >> Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : >> >> Hi Norbert, >> >> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . >> >> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >> >> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >> >> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >>> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>> >>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>> today. >>> >>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>> >>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>> right to democratic processes is established. >>> >>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>> >>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>> >>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>> >>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>> schrieb Adam Peake : >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>> >>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>> >>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>> >>>> Please act immediately. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>> MAKING. >>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>> YOU. >>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>> >>>> Tunis Agenda >>>> >>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>> policies. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 2 12:44:24 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 11:44:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? perhaps you should begin by refraining from using terminology such as " status quoers, and their kindergarden folks" and "MS Blah" -- 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri May 2 12:58:42 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:58:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6351C35A-62A6-48B3-A0EC-EB676B9D9DCB@theglobaljournal.net> The take-away lessons of Netmundial are plenty. One of them is discord. Not concord. Thanks to MS. Thanks also for reminding us who 'owns' the Internet (...seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks...). We should be grateful to them for having the right to enjoy the interconnection of telcos. Opposing the private sector to make public policy on an equal footing with public authorities is a critical challenge. They might express their views, not decided. This is the business pandora box that you are trying to open. It must be exciting to give it a try. Businesses might try to corrupt the public sector, or play double games (one day at the State Department, next day at Verizon or Comcast, or...) then back to the USG. We know that both the private sector and the public sector have the power to abuse their position. Need examples? But in terms in public policy, this would mean the end of democracy. Some here understand that this IG debate sounds like the perfect case for going beyond democracy. See the Berggruen project, working hand in hand with the big digital rallying to give sense to their 'natural' power. Shocked by the trillions? Not at all. Shocked by the fact that this power is overwhelming public power and endangering the 'social contract'. See what it is? You talk XIX century. Read Road to Power by Historian Pr. Jo Guldi (Harvard/Brown) to get an idea of how bad was the British private sector trying to handle transportation over two centuries (with private toll road and private turnpike). It was such a disaster, that it became a necessity to give it back public authorities regulation and management. Now history tells us: beware of the private sector. We can change leaders in Democracy. Shareholders, sometimes, can change their leaders. Not always. It does not obviate democracy, it just denies it. giving it a seat at the private sector kindergarden is certainly a philanthropic attitude. Not a democratic one. JC (Do we alway need to stipulate that when we write we do it in our humble capacity? ) Le 2 mai 2014 à 18:11, Lee W McKnight a écrit : > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. > > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. > > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. > > In my always humble opinion : ) > > Lee > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM > To: Rafik; Adam Peake > Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! > > See below but in short, here are the best parts: > - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) > - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" > - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! > - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." > > This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. > > Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". > > No thanks! > > JC > > > From McKinsey > > > The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. > > Interview transcript > > A new model for solving global problems > There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. > > And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. > > In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? > > A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. > > There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. > > And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. > > The role of companies as citizens > The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. > > But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. > > This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. > > But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. > > Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. > > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > >> Hi Norbert, >> >> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . >> >> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >> >> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >> >> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>> today. >>> >>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>> >>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>> right to democratic processes is established. >>> >>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>> >>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>> >>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>> >>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>> schrieb Adam Peake : >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>> >>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>> >>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>> >>>> Please act immediately. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>> MAKING. >>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>> YOU. >>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>> >>>> Tunis Agenda >>>> >>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>> policies. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:01:53 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 13:01:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IANAtransition] english version of Marco Civil In-Reply-To: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: yes On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: > At 21:04 01/05/2014, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have prepared. >> You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I have >> reviewed it once again. >> > > Permission to reproduce it on web sites? > Quoting you as a translator? > Thank you. > > Regards > FSP4NET > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:22:33 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:22:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000e01cf662b$1c2caaf0$548600d0$@gmail.com> For an interesting reply to your comments Lee see these by a consummate techie insider, who if you read to the end seems to be calling for the Internet to be treated as a public utility. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140426_rip_network_neutrality/ M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:12 PM To: Rafik; Adam Peake; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: RE: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. In my always humble opinion : ) Lee _____ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM To: Rafik; Adam Peake Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! See below but in short, here are the best parts: - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". No thanks! JC From McKinsey The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. There were also no NGOs 1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. The role of companies as citizens The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : Hi Norbert, If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. Rafik Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger today. Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal construct through which this human right is established is via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic processes is established. I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of totally non-democratic states here. I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake : Dear Parminder, To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. Please act immediately. Thank you, Adam PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. Tunis Agenda 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:35:24 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:05:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [IANAtransition] english version of Marco Civil In-Reply-To: References: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Carolina Rossini I have posted this at page http://isocindiachennai.org/?p=1575 after uploading it to ScribD for ease of embedding, with due credits to you for creating the English version and have shared the blog post on facebook and Google+ as Carolina Rossini's English Translation of Marco Civil Hope this is alright. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > yes > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: > >> At 21:04 01/05/2014, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have >>> prepared. You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I >>> have reviewed it once again. >>> >> >> Permission to reproduce it on web sites? >> Quoting you as a translator? >> Thank you. >> >> Regards >> FSP4NET >> >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri May 2 14:32:38 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 20:32:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <042501cf6611$8c580690$a50813b0$@hserus.net> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <042501cf6611$8c580690$a50813b0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5363E4C6.70407@acm.org> On 02-May-14 16:19, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I hope the other civil society representatives on the WG immediately > reiterated their opposition to paragraph 35? I do not think anyone in the room doubted my opinion on the issue. I have been arguing this case since the WGIG days when I was informed that it was already agreed language and sacred. It was my first experience in 2004 with the phenomena of unchangeable language. One of the things that has amazed me is the complete unwillingness of most governments to discuss this. Though this time the Swedish representative did show a lot of flexibility, it is the first time I have seen that and was very impressed and pleased. I think other governments were willing to accept language like "acknowledging that different stakeholders have different roles and responsibilities depending on the issue and other circumstances" thus moving away from the sacred language while still allowing that of course governments have some roles and responsibilities that were specifically gov't roles - for example legislation, treaties or putting people in jail for infringing the rights of others. Thogh even in these I insist that CS has a seat at the table and must be consulted and allow to discuss the issues - it is just that unless there is a direct democracy or referendum system the decision rests with representatives or monarchs. And that is a funny clue, that interesting enough Richard Hill helped me understand, it seems that some of the gov'ts may think that we argue against this because we don't accept their sovereign right to make laws withing their geographical designations, as opposed to being because they put everybody in a box of gov't choosing without consulting us and limited the role of CS to local affairs. I have tried to make clear that personally I think that the sovereign rights of a country are the problem (except for when they go against HR) of the people living in the country. E.G. some of them are happy with monarchies because it makes them feel safe and protected, and that is not my problem unless the attack other countries or violate the human rights of their subjects or others. Rambled enough on this topic. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 2 16:02:06 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 01:32:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5363F9BE.1080003@itforchange.net> Dear Adam First of thanks for quoting my intervention in full, which in fact answers your question. I have clearly described in my intervention why and in which sense do I see the respective role of different stakeholders. And I dont think you would have heard it first time from me that I thoroughly oppose big business having a similar role as governments in terms of public policy decision making. Not only is this the position of my organisation, it is the position of many networks of large numbers of civil society organisations that I work with. Now that I have answered your question - and I am ready to give any further answers or clarifications as well - would you also make your own position clear about this issue. Do you see business having a similar or equal role as governments in public policy decision making? After I get the answer to this question, I will explore, as you have with regard to me, which constituencies does your position get support from or represent. Thanks in advance. parminder On Friday 02 May 2014 06:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > >>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. > THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. >>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: > a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. > b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. > c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. > d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. > e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 2 16:29:20 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 01:59:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance > Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their 'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions fairly and honestly? The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public policy' 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so that you miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting all these elements - at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not more. > seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being > inter-networked across the Internet; > So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 'equal role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be explicit in your response. Such examples can be given in practically all sectors... As Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the business of governments that should not mean that regulating business is also not their business.. That precisely is their business. You would have heard the term regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the regulated) businesses given an equal role in relevant public policy making. > not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of > -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th > century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and > two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens > rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just > silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder > engagement. > > > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, > citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and > businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- > lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have > seats at the table. > Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business as citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency towards such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of elections, but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil society even within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are expressing such a view rather easily.. I dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global - and have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they are the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as well). I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not. parminder > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. > > > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough > China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. > (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay > attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through > the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses > would not be paying attention. > > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory > global Internet governance processes. > > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are > playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is > the correct lesson. > > > In my always humble opinion : ) > > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > on behalf of Jean-Christophe > NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > *Sent:* Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM > *To:* Rafik; Adam Peake > *Cc:* Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working > group on enhanced cooperation > McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives > to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! > > See below but in short, here are the best parts: > - "*The Role of Companies as citizens*" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) > - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than > the IG itself: " *Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process* (note by > JCN: /the public sector conducting policy making)/ *and start to bring > together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks*" > - "*And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so > on*": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! > - and the final touch "*Because of the growing power of the digital > revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and > be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that > they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global > solution networks—and participate in them*." > > This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a > political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision > makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and > participation. > > Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private > sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new > partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting > all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the > private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some > sort of 'enhanced democracy". > > No thanks! > > JC > > > From McKinsey > > > *The topic of business* wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods > Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how > the international monetary and financial system would operate in the > wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik > Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is > different—and why business must play a central role in solving global > problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. > > > Interview transcript > > > A new model for solving global problems > > There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve > problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And > for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, > the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, > state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to > solve problems. > > And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have > are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard > to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new > factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping > transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s > leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm > and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and > services, and so on. > > In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to > create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get > capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we > disaggregate that process and start to bring together new > partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? > > A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new > “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no > corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as > being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made > money for shareholders and created goods and services. > > There were also no NGOs^1 > at > Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the > world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming > together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re > multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. > They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, > governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily > basis. > > And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every > problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities > to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. > > > The role of companies as citizens > > The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and > the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this > out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for > function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. > States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to > cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. > > But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the > big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going > to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation > from government, civil society, and the private sector. > > This brings about some really big changes for business and how we > think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in > ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? > You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But > increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re > going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also > gave money through philanthropy and so on. > > But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil > society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is > critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s > failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic > development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment > is an epidemic in the world today. > > Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have > growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in > society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise > of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and > participate in them. > > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > >> Hi Norbert, >> >> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing >> many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having >> any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having >> role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems >> with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having >> SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match >> democratic values you are mentioning . >> >> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really >> think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really >> representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are >> mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The >> state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the >> world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any >> possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >> >> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from >> developing region to participate in such process , but at least I >> have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the >> marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts >> giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >> >> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are >> defending cannot be improved at all. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow > > a écrit : >> >>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>> today. >>> >>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>> >>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>> right to democratic processes is established. >>> >>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>> >>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>> >>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>> >>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>> schrieb Adam Peake >: >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>> >>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>> >>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>> >>>> Please act immediately. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>> MAKING. >>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>> YOU. >>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>> >>>> Tunis Agenda >>>> >>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>> policies. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri May 2 16:57:23 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 02:27:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Your position is valid in a predominantly multilateral environment as the ITU, where there are limits to Civil Society participation, in the absence of which balance does not prevail, and in the absence of balance, proximity of Business with Government is unhealthy. But if you seek to exclude Business from Pubic Policy, then the entire concept of multi-stakeholder governance is weakened. The basic idea of multi-stakeholder model is that each stakeholder group brings to the table, transparently, its own position representing its own best interests, which are balanced by the positions of other stakeholder groups. Your position indirectly reflects the views of our own Government, as that of many other Governments, that '*you are free to provide inputs, but we decide; Your role stops with participation (you will be heard), but you will have no role in framing the policy' *Single Quotes here does not imply exact wording of the position. The wording is my own, but roughly reflect the views of some in Government who I have occasion to talk to. If this is not the position of Indian Government, I would be happy to retract what I have said here :) By seeking to exclude Business, with the claim that it is "position of many networks of large numbers of civil society organisations" that you work with [in India?], your views are aligned with the views of Government, and undermines the entire idea of multi-stakeholder model. Perhaps you could announce that you will henceforth wear the Government Hat, then you are free to work towards multilateral model. And for now, I am entirely with Adam's demand that you should withdraw your comment. Thank you Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:59 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance > > > Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their > 'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different > views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions > fairly and honestly? The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public policy' > 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so that you > miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting all these > elements - at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not more. > > > seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being > inter-networked across the Internet; > > > So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 'equal > role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be explicit in > your response. Such examples can be given in practically all sectors... As > Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the business of > governments that should not mean that regulating business is also not their > business.. That precisely is their business. You would have heard the term > regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the regulated) businesses > given an equal role in relevant public policy making. > > > not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- > techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th > century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way > revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights > domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to > think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. > > > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, > citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and > businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots > of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at > the table. > > > Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business as > citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency towards > such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of elections, > but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil society even > within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are expressing such a > view rather easily.. > > I dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global - and > have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work > with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they are > the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as well). > > I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings > here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising > banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not. > > parminder > > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. > > > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough > China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. > (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention > to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global > economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be > paying attention. > > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory > global Internet governance processes. > > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing > - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct > lesson. > > > In my always humble opinion : ) > > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > > *Sent:* Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM > *To:* Rafik; Adam Peake > *Cc:* Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group > on enhanced cooperation > > McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives > to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! > > See below but in short, here are the best parts: > - "*The Role of Companies as citizens*" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) > - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG > itself: " *Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process* (note by JCN: *the > public sector conducting policy making)* *and start to bring together new > partnerships, new multistakeholder networks*" > - "*And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on*": > Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! > - and the final touch "*Because of the growing power of the digital > revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be > full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they > understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution > networks—and participate in them*." > > This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a > political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision > makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. > > Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private > sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new > partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all > over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private > sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of > 'enhanced democracy". > > No thanks! > > JC > > > From McKinsey > > > *The topic of business* wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods > Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the > international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of > World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author > and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why > business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited > transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. > Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems > > There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve > problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 > years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model > has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based > institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. > > And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are > not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to > solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one > of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and > collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in > the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate > capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. > > In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to > create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get > capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate > that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new > multistakeholder networks? > > A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars > of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at > Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of > society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders > and created goods and services. > > There were also no NGOs1 at > Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world > in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into > something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I > call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of > organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of > people on a daily basis. > > And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every > problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to > address some of the big challenges facing the global community. > The role of companies as citizens > > The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the > smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. > There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and > we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be > around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. > And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. > > But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big > climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a > true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from > government, civil society, and the private sector. > > This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think > about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that > were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe > to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to > get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got > to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so > on. > > But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil > society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is > critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s > failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic > development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an > epidemic in the world today. > > Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have > growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in > society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of > these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and > participate in them. > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many > times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A > position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I > guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector > involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, > preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are > mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think > that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian > citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of > people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non > democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they > will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against > their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing > region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to > not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , > I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments > than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending > cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > > today. > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > > construct through which this human right is established is via the > > public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > > have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > > right to democratic processes is established. > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > Dear Parminder, > > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > > Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > > Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > > knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > > Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > > oppose paragraph 35. > > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > > civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > > business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > > and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > > time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > > Please act immediately. > > > Thank you, > > > Adam > > > > PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > > DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > > RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > > RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > > TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > > POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > > AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > > ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > > PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > > MAKING. > > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > > IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > > ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > > HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > > ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > > REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > > MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > > EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > > IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > > REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > > PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > > DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > > DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > > BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > > THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > > YOU. > > CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > > Tunis Agenda > > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > > technical and public policy issues and should involve all > > stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > > organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > > authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > > right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > > international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > > sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > > development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > > fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > > Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > > to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > > should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > > Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > > have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > > policies. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri May 2 17:25:32 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 09:25:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] World Press Freedom Day Message-ID: <09AA95D6-DBA5-4A82-AC72-4A5981BFF98A@gmail.com> Dear All, As we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, I pay tribute to all the journalists who have lost their lives or been imprisoned, for their role in reporting. The Press no doubt have always held an edge in shaping popular opinion by virtue of their reach. Whilst the Internet has leveled the playing field by virtue of its ubiquitous nature and enabled ordinary men, women, boys, girls to "free" their stories via the internet through social media, one cannot discount the power of the "written word" or "picture" and "sound". Countries still have a long way to go on Press Freedom as the Press is still stifled in certain parts of the world. For indicators, see: http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2014/press-freedom-numbers#.U2P4DimLRHc.twitter As we celebrate the Day, the themes that come to the fore of my reflections include: 1)Freedom of Expression 2)The Responsibility to Report Ethically (in a manner that allows the intended audience in developing a clear 3D perspective on whatever issues 3)The value of securing the newsworthy item has a cost on someone's life security etc. 4)The need for societies to mature to fully embrace the role of a free press 5)The wisdom needed for local, domestic press in reaching out to diverse stakeholders to educate people on the need to be free and informed. The Internet Governance forums and debates provide an excellent platform to enable and facilitate outreach, dialogue and discussion as it brings stakeholders to the table to discuss critical issues. To all the journalists subscribed to the IGC list, here's wishing you an excellent day! With every best wish, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marilynscade at hotmail.com Fri May 2 18:14:07 2014 From: marilynscade at hotmail.com (Marilyn Cade) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 00:14:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone > On May 2, 2014, at 16:12, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > >>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. > THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. >>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: > a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. > b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. > c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. > d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. > e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 May 2 20:21:48 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 05:51:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <6351C35A-62A6-48B3-A0EC-EB676B9D9DCB@theglobaljournal.net> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <6351C35A-62A6-48B3-A0EC-EB676B9D9DCB@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3F207C1A-6F8C-48D8-8817-709EDE831831@hserus.net> The discord is thanks to people who reject multistakeholderism. That includes some government and industry players. That also includes a tiny though long winded splinter group from among civil society. And you speak to us of discord? When actively trying to create it here? --srs (iPad) > On 02-May-2014, at 22:28, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > > The take-away lessons of Netmundial are plenty. One of them is discord. Not concord. Thanks to MS. > > Thanks also for reminding us who 'owns' the Internet (...seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks...). We should be grateful to them for having the right to enjoy the interconnection of telcos. > > Opposing the private sector to make public policy on an equal footing with public authorities is a critical challenge. They might express their views, not decided. This is the business pandora box that you are trying to open. It must be exciting to give it a try. Businesses might try to corrupt the public sector, or play double games (one day at the State Department, next day at Verizon or Comcast, or...) then back to the USG. We know that both the private sector and the public sector have the power to abuse their position. Need examples? But in terms in public policy, this would mean the end of democracy. Some here understand that this IG debate sounds like the perfect case for going beyond democracy. See the Berggruen project, working hand in hand with the big digital rallying to give sense to their 'natural' power. > > Shocked by the trillions? Not at all. Shocked by the fact that this power is overwhelming public power and endangering the 'social contract'. See what it is? > > You talk XIX century. Read Road to Power by Historian Pr. Jo Guldi (Harvard/Brown) to get an idea of how bad was the British private sector trying to handle transportation over two centuries (with private toll road and private turnpike). It was such a disaster, that it became a necessity to give it back public authorities regulation and management. Now history tells us: beware of the private sector. We can change leaders in Democracy. Shareholders, sometimes, can change their leaders. Not always. > > It does not obviate democracy, it just denies it. giving it a seat at the private sector kindergarden is certainly a philanthropic attitude. Not a democratic one. > > JC > (Do we alway need to stipulate that when we write we do it in our humble capacity? ) > > > >> Le 2 mai 2014 à 18:11, Lee W McKnight a écrit : >> >> Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. >> >> Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. >> >> How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. >> >> As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. >> >> A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. >> >> It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) >> >> Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. >> >> It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. >> >> The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. >> >> In my always humble opinion : ) >> >> Lee >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM >> To: Rafik; Adam Peake >> Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >> >> McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! >> >> See below but in short, here are the best parts: >> - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) >> - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" >> - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! >> - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." >> >> This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. >> >> Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". >> >> No thanks! >> >> JC >> >> >> From McKinsey >> >> >> The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. >> >> Interview transcript >> >> A new model for solving global problems >> There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. >> >> And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. >> >> In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? >> >> A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. >> >> There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. >> >> And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. >> >> The role of companies as citizens >> The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. >> >> But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. >> >> This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. >> >> But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. >> >> Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. >> >> >>> Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Norbert, >>> >>> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . >>> >>> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >>> >>> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >>> >>> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>>> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>>> >>>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>>> >>>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>>> today. >>>> >>>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>>> >>>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>>> right to democratic processes is established. >>>> >>>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>>> >>>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>>> >>>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>>> >>>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>>> schrieb Adam Peake : >>>> >>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>>> >>>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>>> >>>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>>> >>>>> Please act immediately. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>>> MAKING. >>>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>>> YOU. >>>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>>> >>>>> Tunis Agenda >>>>> >>>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>>> policies. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri May 2 20:25:41 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 05:55:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree that his position mirrors that of a part of the Indian government (though other parts of GoI at least under minister Sibal while he lasts till this elections end) routinely deliver ringing endorsements of multistakeholderism. Remains to be seen in which direction the next administration tilts, and their being hardline right wing I seriously doubt it will be anywhere near a liberal left civil society coalition. --srs (iPad) > On 03-May-2014, at 2:27, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > Your position is valid in a predominantly multilateral environment as the ITU, where there are limits to Civil Society participation, in the absence of which balance does not prevail, and in the absence of balance, proximity of Business with Government is unhealthy. > > But if you seek to exclude Business from Pubic Policy, then the entire concept of multi-stakeholder governance is weakened. The basic idea of multi-stakeholder model is that each stakeholder group brings to the table, transparently, its own position representing its own best interests, which are balanced by the positions of other stakeholder groups. > > Your position indirectly reflects the views of our own Government, as that of many other Governments, that 'you are free to provide inputs, but we decide; Your role stops with participation (you will be heard), but you will have no role in framing the policy' Single Quotes here does not imply exact wording of the position. The wording is my own, but roughly reflect the views of some in Government who I have occasion to talk to. If this is not the position of Indian Government, I would be happy to retract what I have said here :) > > By seeking to exclude Business, with the claim that it is "position of many networks of large numbers of civil society organisations" that you work with [in India?], your views are aligned with the views of Government, and undermines the entire idea of multi-stakeholder model. > > Perhaps you could announce that you will henceforth wear the Government Hat, then you are free to work towards multilateral model. > > And for now, I am entirely with Adam's demand that you should withdraw your comment. > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > >> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:59 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance >>> >> >> Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their 'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions fairly and honestly? The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public policy' 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so that you miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting all these elements - at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not more. >> >> >>> seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; >>> >> >> So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 'equal role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be explicit in your response. Such examples can be given in practically all sectors... As Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the business of governments that should not mean that regulating business is also not their business.. That precisely is their business. You would have heard the term regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the regulated) businesses given an equal role in relevant public policy making. >> >> >>> not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. >>> >>> >>> Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. >>> >>> >>> How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. >>> >>> >>> As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. >>> >> >> Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business as citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency towards such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of elections, but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil society even within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are expressing such a view rather easily.. >> >> I dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global - and have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they are the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as well). >> >> I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not. >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. >>> >>> >>> It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) >>> >>> >>> Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. >>> >>> >>> It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. >>> >>> >>> The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. >>> >>> >>> In my always humble opinion : ) >>> >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >>> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM >>> To: Rafik; Adam Peake >>> Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! >>> >>> See below but in short, here are the best parts: >>> - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) >>> - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" >>> - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! >>> - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." >>> >>> This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. >>> >>> Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". >>> >>> No thanks! >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> From McKinsey >>> >>> >>> The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. >>> >>> Interview transcript >>> >>> A new model for solving global problems >>> There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. >>> >>> And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. >>> >>> In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? >>> >>> A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. >>> >>> There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. >>> >>> And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. >>> >>> The role of companies as citizens >>> The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. >>> >>> But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. >>> >>> This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. >>> >>> But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. >>> >>> Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. >>> >>> >>>> Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : >>>> >>>> Hi Norbert, >>>> >>>> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . >>>> >>>> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >>>> >>>> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >>>> >>>> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>>> >>>>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>>>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>>>> today. >>>>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>>>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>>>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>>>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>>>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>>>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>>>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>>>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>>>> right to democratic processes is established. >>>>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>>>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>>>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>>>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>>>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>>>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>>>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>>>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>>>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>>>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>>>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>>>> schrieb Adam Peake : >>>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>>>> Please act immediately. >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>>>> MAKING. >>>>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>>>> YOU. >>>>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>>>> Tunis Agenda >>>>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>>>> policies. >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 20:32:22 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 20:32:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [IANAtransition] english version of Marco Civil In-Reply-To: References: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: :-) On May 2, 2014 1:35 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" wrote: > Dear Carolina Rossini > > > I have posted this at page http://isocindiachennai.org/?p=1575 after > uploading it to ScribD for ease of embedding, with due credits to you for > creating the English version and have shared the blog post on facebook and > Google+ as Carolina Rossini's English Translation of Marco Civil > > Hope this is alright. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> yes >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: >> >>> At 21:04 01/05/2014, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>> Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have >>>> prepared. You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I >>>> have reviewed it once again. >>>> >>> >>> Permission to reproduce it on web sites? >>> Quoting you as a translator? >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Regards >>> FSP4NET >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 2 23:16:43 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:16:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, Thanks for the response, Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do > at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a > link to. > > I was not judging you, that is not my goal. > I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full > involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector, > for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of > proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different > countries choose to adopt different public policy options. > good to hear that you are in support of multistaekholder process, that was not indicated in your first message. > > In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global > multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if > it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a > well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of > diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be > consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems > are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the > benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy > choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different > stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national > parliaments so that the choice between different public policy > possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will > be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible > information. > > again good to see your explanation for supporting the multistakeholder model with such level of details. I responded to your when you were defending the state based model and giving privileges to governments even when you recognise the drawbacks. In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously > have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the > human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points > should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where > the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case > for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and > we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet > governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and > more blurred. > so you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian regimes and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work for you as swiss citizen ? how can this embed the democracy values you are defending? Rafik > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Rafik wrote: > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing > > many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having > > any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having > > role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems > > with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having > > SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match > > democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really > > think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really > > representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are > > mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The > > state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the > > world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any > > possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from > > developing region to participate in such process , but at least I > > have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the > > marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts > > giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are > > defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real > > > danger today. > > > > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the > > > legal construct through which this human right is established is > > > via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the > > > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the > > > document the right to democratic processes is established. > > > > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want > > > to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract > > > anything. > > > > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as > > > those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > > > >> Dear Parminder, > > >> > > >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > > >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration > > >> of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary > > >> in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > > >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week > > >> in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > > >> oppose paragraph 35. > > >> > > >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > > >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself > > >> with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > >> > > >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on > > >> roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. > > >> You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later > > >> today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > >> > > >> Please act immediately. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > >> > > >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE > > >>>> SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT > > >>>> SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE > > >>>> ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE > > >>>> TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT > > >>>> OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER > > >>>> SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND > > >>>> THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED > > >>>> COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS > > >>>> SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > > >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT > > >> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT > > >> TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS > > >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN > > >> GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL > > >> LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER > > >> IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT > > >> PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE > > >> SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE > > >> PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK > > >> ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN > > >> EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT > > >> IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE > > >> SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE > > >> ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES > > >> COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE > > >> THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. > > >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > >> > > >> Tunis Agenda > > >> > > >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses > > >> both technical and public policy issues and should involve all > > >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > > >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > > >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the > > >> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities > > >> for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The > > >> private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important > > >> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and > > >> economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important > > >> role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and > > >> should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental > > >> organizations have had, and should continue to have, a > > >> facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public > > >> policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and > > >> should continue to have an important role in the development of > > >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 2 23:43:33 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:43:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Cher Jean-Christophe, honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. Merci et bon vent. Best, Rafik ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias < jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>: > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though > final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a > bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that > are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, > openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, > innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and > their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current > MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No > kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is > balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or > governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very > serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the > different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, > let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years > of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these > visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that > this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other > parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people > having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and > defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of > IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach > sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has > changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS > model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing > many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any > role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at > all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private > sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big > corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values > you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think > that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian > citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of > people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non > democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they > will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against > their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing > region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to > not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , > I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments > than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending > cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 3 03:55:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 08:55:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google Message-ID: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> This discussion is currently roiling Europe and beyond. The discussion and Zuboff's analysis has very significant implications for the matters of Multistakeholder governance which are currently being triumphantly trumpeted in these contexts and beyond. The issues that Zuboff is pointing to with specific reference to Google and surveillance underlie the drive to include companies like Google and others directly in decision making through multistakeholder processes/Internet Governance. It hardly takes a huge flight of imagination to recognize the signals concerning the extreme danger that MSism represents in the context of Zuboff's arguments i.e. giving Google (et al) effective veto power over and a highly influential (and potentially unstoppable role in) decision making in areas key to controlling what Zuboff calls "the rise of absolute power". (And for the Multistakeholderists among us here is a critical response from a former senior employee of another Silicon Valley corporate giant--Yahoo https://www.facebook.com/benjaminbratton/posts/10152082644097966?stream_ref=10 ) M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Yosem Companys Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:41 PM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google 30.04.2014 Dark Google We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. Von SHOSHANA ZUBOFF Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don’t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it’s too late to leap to safety. We are as frogs in the digital waters, and Springer CEO Mathias Dopfner has just become our frog town crier. Mr. Dopfner’s "Why We Fear Google" http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7oid8 (a response to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s open letter, "A Chance for Growth" http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7o8dh) warns of danger on the move: "The temperatures are rising fast.” If his cry of alarm scares you, that’s good. Why? First, because there is a dawning awareness that Google is forging a new kingdom on the strength of a different kind of power –– ubiquitous, hidden, and unaccountable. If successful, the dominion of this kingdom will exceed anything the world has known. The water is close to boiling, because Google understands this statement more profoundly than we do. Second, because accessing the Web and the wider Internet have become essential for effective social participation across much of the world. A BBC poll conducted in 2010 found that 79% of people in 26 countries considered access to the Internet to be a fundamental human right. We rely on Google’s tools as we search, learn, connect, communicate, and transact. The chilling irony is that we’ve become dependent on the Internet to enhance our lives, but the very tools we use there threaten to remake society in ways that we do not understand and have not chosen. Something new and dangerous If there is a single word to describe Google, it is "absolute." The Britannica defines absolutism as a system in which "the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency." In ordinary affairs, absolutism is a moral attitude in which values and principles are regarded as unchallengeable and universal. There is no relativism, context-dependence, or openness to change. Six years ago I asked Eric Schmidt what corporate innovations Google was putting in place to ensure that its interests were aligned with its end users. Would it betray their trust? Back then his answer stunned me. He and Google’s founders control the super-voting class B stock. This allows them, he explained, to make decisions without regard to short-term pressure from Wall Street. Of course, it also insulates them from every other kind of influence. There was no wrestling with the creation of an inclusive, trustworthy, and transparent governance system. There was no struggle to institutionalize scrutiny and feedback. Instead Schmidt’s answer was the quintessence of absolutism: "trust me; I know best." At that moment I knew I was in the presence of something new and dangerous whose effects reached beyond narrow economic contests and into the heart of everyday life. Google kills Innovation Mr. Schmidt’s open letter to Europe shows evidence of such absolutism. Democratic oversight is characterized as "heavy-handed regulation." The "Internet", "Web", and "Google" are referenced interchangeably, as if Goggle’s interests stand for the entire Web and Internet. That’s a magician’s sleight of hand intended to distract from the real issue. Google’s absolutist pursuit of its interests is now regarded by many as responsible for the Web’s fading prospects as an open information platform in which participants can agree on rules, rights, and choice. Schmidt warns that were the E.U. to oppose Google’s practices, Europe risks becoming "an innovation desert." Just the opposite is more likely true. Thanks in part to Google’s exquisite genius in the science of surveillance, the audacity with which it has expropriated users’ rights to privacy, and the aggressive tactics of the NSA, people are losing trust in the entire digital medium. It is this loss of trust that stands to kill innovation. To make some sense of our predicament, let’s take a fresh look at how we got here, the nature of the threats we face, and the stakes for the future. Google Colonizes a Blank Area and the NSA Follows In his extended essay, "The Loneliness of the Dying", the sociologist Norbert Elias observes that "dying is at present a largely unformed situation, a blank area on the social map." Such "blanks" occur when earlier meanings and practices no longer apply, but new ones have yet to be created. Google’s rapid rise to power was possible because it ventured into this kind of blank area. It colonized the blank space at high speed without challenge or impediment. Google did not ask permission, seek consensus, elicit opinion, or even make visible its rules and ramparts. How did this occur? Breaking the Rules of the "Old World" The first key ingredient was demand. During the second half of the twentieth century, more education and complex social experience produced a new kind of individual. No longer content to conform to the mass, more people sought their own unique paths to self-determination. It was a period of growing frustration with existing institutions that were still oriented toward the mass society of an earlier time. People wanted to reinvent social experiences in ways that expressed their new sensibilities. They wanted information on their own terms, not controlled by the old norms, professional fortresses, and business models. The arrival of the Internet provided a new way forward. As web browsers and search tools became available, the new individuals rushed onto the Web with their pent up demands for genuine voice and connection. Information access and communication could bypass old boundaries and be reconfigured to suit any need. Here finally was experience how I want it, where I want it, when I want it. There was a presumption that the adversarial rules from the "old world" of 20th century commerce did not apply. This was a new "networked public sphere," as legal scholar Yochai Benkler called it. There was no looking back. Google and other companies rushed into the new space too, and for a while it seemed that they were aligned with the popular expectations of trust and collaboration. But as pressures for profit increased, Google, Facebook, and others shifted to an advertising model that required the covert capture of user data as the currency for ad sales. Profits rapidly materialized and motivated ever more ruthless and determined data collection. The new science of data mining exploded, driven in part by Google’s spectacular success. Fighting the Law The whole topography of cyberspace then began to morph as Google and Facebook shifted away from the ethos of the public web, while carefully retaining its rhetoric. They began to develop a new logic of operations in what had until then been a blank area. The new zone didn’t resemble the bricks and mortar world of commerce, but neither did it follow the norms of the open web. This confused and distracted users. In fact, the firms were developing a wholly new business logic that incorporated elements of the conventional logic of corporate capitalism –especially its adversarialism toward end consumers – along with elements from the new Internet world – especially its intimacy. The outcome was the elaboration of a new commercial logic based on hidden surveillance. Most people did not understand that they and their friends were being tracked, parsed, and mined without their knowledge or consent. A steady stream of eruptions from the new zone provides evidence of this new logic of operations. For example, Google faces a series of contentious lawsuits over its secret scanning of all Gmail, including mail from non-Gmail accounts. It first tried to conceal the scanning procedures in 2010 and only fully acknowledged them after four years of public outcry. In one „potentially explosive” lawsuit Google acknowledged that it unilaterally scans millions of email messages sent or received by the 30 million student users of the the company’s Apps for Education tools. In 2012 Google face more outrage and lawsuits when it announced that it would consolidate data about its users from all its services without any mechanism of consent. Google Street View launched in 2007 is another example of the company’s absolutism. It didn’t ask if it could photograph homes for public consumption, it just took what it wanted and waited for any resistance to exhaust itself in defeat. Ultimately Street View would face protests and restrictions in many countries across the EU as well as Japan, Greece, and Canada. The Shared Interest of NSA and Google By 2010 the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection announced that Google’s Street View operation also camouflaged a covert data sweep from users of private Wi-Fi networks. He called for an immediate halt to Street View in Germany and erasure of all illegally captured data. Other countries followed with their own investigations and prosecutions. The Electronic Privacy and Information Center has consistently pressed the case. It maintains a detailed overview of the worldwide outrage, protests, investigations, litigation, and settlements in response to Google Street View and its secret data gathering tactics. In 2010, Google established a partnership with the NSA that added to the complexity and opacity of operations in the new zone. The ostensible trigger for this public-private alliance was Google’s discovery that the Chinese had hacked its infrastructure. However, the NSA already had a keen interest in all things Google. It struggled with the demands of tracking objects and discerning patterns in Internet time. The NSA was actively developing the same tools and capabilities that allowed Google to search and analyze masses of data at warp speed. A New Business Model The U.S. Justice Department kept the partnership secret, but news reports, court documents, and eventually the Snowden leaks reveals a picture of interdependence and collaboration. As former director of the NSA Mike McConnell put it, "Recent reports of possible partnership between Google and the government point to the kind of joint efforts -- and shared challenges -- that we are likely to see in the future...Cyberspace knows no borders, and our defensive efforts must be similarly seamless." The NSA developed its own software to mimic the Google infrastructure, uses Google “cookies” to identify targets for hacking, and widely accesses emails and other data through the PRISM program, the costs of which it covered for Google and other Internet firms. Google and Facebook had led the way in colonizing the new zone with a commercial logic based on surveillance. Now the Google-NSA alliance added new layers and capabilities, as well as a complex public-private dimension that remains poorly understood. Whatever the details might be, the new logic spread to other companies and applications, driving the growth and success of operations in the new zone. Despite this growth, it’s been difficult to grasp the changing social relations that are produced in the new zone. associated with Google’s new commercial logic. There are two reasons for this. First, the companies move faster than individuals or democratic public institutions can follow. Second, its operations are designed to be undetectable. It’s this later point that I want to focus on for a moment. Google’s Radical Politics We often hear that our privacy rights have been eroded and secrecy has grown. But that way of framing things obscures what’s really at stake. Privacy hasn’t been eroded. It’s been expropriated. The difference in framing provides new ways to define the problem and consider solutions. In the conventional telling, privacy and secrecy are treated as opposites. In fact, one is a cause and the other is an effect. Exercising our right to privacy leads to choice. We can choose to keep something secret or to share it, but we only have that choice when we first have privacy. Privacy rights confer decision rights. Privacy lets us decide where we want to be on the spectrum between secrecy and transparency in each situation. Secrecy is the effect; privacy is the cause. I suggest that privacy rights have not been eroded, if anything they’ve multiplied. The difference now is how these rights are distributed. Instead of many people having some privacy rights, nearly all the rights have been concentrated in the hands of a few. On the one hand, we have lost the ability to choose what we keep secret, and what we share. On the other, Google, the NSA, and others in the new zone have accumulated privacy rights. How? Most of their rights have come from taking ours without asking. But they also manufactured new rights for themselves, the way a forger might print currency. They assert a right to privacy with respect to their surveillance tactics and then exercise their choice to keep those tactics secret. A pre-modern absolutism Finally - and this is key - the new concentration of privacy rights is institutionalized in the automatic undetectable functions of a global infrastructure that most of the world’s people also happen to think is essential for basic social participation. This turns ordinary life into the daily renewal of a 21st century Faustian pact. It is difficult to appreciate the global reach and implications of this rights grab. Leaving aside whether or not it crosses the threshold of "revolution," it is a form of radical politics that has engineered a significant redistribution of power in just a few years based on the. Expropriation of widely held privacy rights and the choices they entail. This has been accomplished through a unique assembly of public and private actors and interests that operate outside the auspices of legitimate democratic mechanisms. In some respects, the social relations that emerge from this rights grab are best compared to that of a pre-modern absolutism. We have been caught off guard. Neither we as individuals nor our public institutions have a clear grasp of these new relationships, their implications, the relevant paths to action, or the goals to achieve. There are good reasons for so much confusion and dismay. The dynamics I describe have occurred in a blank area that is not easily captured by our existing social, economic, and political categories. They extend far beyond the realm of economics and the old debates about business monopolies and competitive practices. The new business operations reach beyond our wallets into the very essence of our lives. They elude our mental models and defy our rational expectations to such an extent that we end up questioning our own witness and powers of evaluation. Unfortunately, the situation is about to get worse as Google’s radical politics spread from cyberspace to the real world. Reality is the Next Big Thing What is Google up to next? We know it’s secret, but here is how it looks to me. Google is no longer content with the data business. It’s next step is to build an even more radical "reality business." Google sees "reality” as the next big thing that it can carve up and sell. In the data business, the payoff is in data patterns that help target ads. In the reality business, the payoff is in shaping and communicating real life behaviors of people and things in millions of ways that drive revenue to Google. The business model is expanding to encompass the digital you as well as the actual you. The scene is changing from virtual reality to, well, reality. Unsurprisingly, the two entities at the vanguard of this new wave are Google and the NSA. The "reality business” reflects a shift in the frontier of data science from data mining to "reality mining.” This new approach was pioneered over the last decade at the MIT Media Lab. Now its migrating to military intelligence and commercial applications. In a 2011 paper, MIT Professor Alex Pentland explains the value of reality mining. "We must reinvent societies’ systems within a control framework.” He notes that this will require exponential growth in data about human behavior.” In another paper, Pentland explains that the proliferation of sensors, mobile phones, and other data capture devices will provide the "eyes and ears” of a "world-spanning living organism.” Where do people eat? Work? Hang out?” - Distributed sensor networks,” he observes, "will provide a God’s eye view of ourselves. For the first time, we can precisely map the behavior of large numbers of people as they go about their daily lives.” The NSA and other intelligence agencies are already using “pattern of life analysis” to identify threats, including those that might originate within the organization as they hope to head off the next Edward Snowden. A range of software companies, some spun off from or funded by the intelligence agencies, provide capabilities in patterns-of-life activity and activity-based intelligence analysis. Reality is the new product Google’s ambitions in this new arena appear to be limitless. In 2012 Brin/Page/Schmidt hired computer scientist Ray Kurzweil to lead engineering. Kurzweil, a brilliant inventor, is a proselytizer for the idea that computers can develop consciousness. "Future machines will be human,” he wrote, "Most of the intelligence of our civilization will ultimately be nonbiological." Kurzweil wants to turn “the next decade’s ‘unrealistic’ visions into reality” at Google. The firm has purchased most of the top machine learning and robotics companies to build what has been described as the "greatest artificial intelligence laboratory on earth.” It paid richly for a company that produces high altitude drones as well as Nest Labs, a firm at the forefront of smart devices for the home and considered essential in the new Internet of Things. All this suggests that Google is building capabilities even more ambitious than reality "mining”. The aim is not merely the God’s eye view, but the God’s eye power to shape and control reality. Google’s glasses, wearables, or self-driving cars have a clear purpose: to inform on where you’ve been, and where you are, and to influence where you’re going. As one expert has suggested, third parties could pay for programming that drives the car sends you to their restaurant, store or political rally . There are vast opportunities for similar reality mining and shaping through the Internet of Things. This refers to the growing network of smart sensors and Internet enabled devices intended as an intelligent infrastructure for all objects and even bodies. From your baby’s diapers, to your refrigerator, heating system, mattress, lights, walls,coffee mug, and artificial knee ––this will be the smart neural network in which you breathe, eat, sleep, travel, and work. It will perform infinite configurations of actions, observations, suggestions, communications, and interventions all geared to a new product category: reality. Google and others will make money knowing, manipulating, controlling, slicing, and dicing all of it. Is Reality for Sale? To make sense of this big puzzle, it helps to have some historical perspective. There are two useful ideas for us in the work of historian Karl Polanyi. He described the rise of a new human conception: the self-regulating market economy. He saw that the market economies of the 19th and 20th centuries depended upon three astonishing mental inventions. He called them "fictions". The first was that human life can be subordinated to market dynamics and be reborn as „labor.” Second, nature can be subordinated and reborn as "real estate." Third, that purchasing power can be reborn as "money.” The very possibility of industrial capitalism depended upon the creation of these three critical "fictional commodities.” Life, nature, and exchange had to be turned into things that could be profitably bought and sold. Google brings us to the precipice of a new development in the scope of the market economy. A fourth fictional commodity is emerging as a dominant characteristic of market dynamics in the 21st century. "Reality" is about to undergo the same kind of fictional transformation and be reborn as "behavior." This includes the behavior of creatures, their bodies, and their things. It includes actual behavior and data about behavior. It is the world-spanning organism and all the tiniest elements within it. Polanyi understood that the pure unimpeded operations of a self-regulating of the market were profoundly destructive. Society required countermeasures to avoid such danger. He called this the "double movement": "a network of measures and policies...integrated into powerful institutions designed to check the action of the market relative to labor, land, and money." Regulation, legislation, democratic oversight...these are the critical responses necessary to protect society from a downward spiral. Anticipating the century to come, he urged the strengthening of the double movement, that "every increase in integration in society should thus be accompanied by an increase of freedom...the strengthening of the rights of the individual in society.” Europe’s Task This returns us to our starting point. Eric Schmidt and Mathias Döpfners controversy in the F.A.Z. is only the beginning of a disruption that will shake industry, society and citizens. It is a plea for the primacy, urgency, and necessity of a new double movement. It must be stronger, more confident, and more deeply principled than we have yet seen. It must provide a counterweight to a dangerous new absolutism that relies on pervasive, secret, unaccountable power. We are beyond the realm of economics here. This is not merely a conversation about free markets; it’s a conversation about free people. It’s an urgent new public conversation that can’t be reduced to 20th century technical debates about Google’s monopoly status or competitive practices. We tend to revert to these old categories in the absence of ready language and law that can help us discern the full implications of what is taking shape. But such specialized professional arguments shift the Google debate from the realm of everyday life and ordinary people to the arcane interests of economists and bureaucrats. They obscure the fact that the issues have shifted from monopolies of products or services to monopolies of rights: rights to privacy and rights to reality. These new forms of power, poorly understood except by their own practitioners, threaten the sovereignty of the democratic social contract. We are powerful too. Our demands for self-determination are not easily extinguished. We made Google, perhaps by loving it too much. We can unmake it, if we must. The challenge is to understand what is at stake and how quickly things are moving. The need is to come together in our diversity to preserve a future in which many visions can thrive, not just one –– Where many rights can flourish, not just some. Things are moving fast. This is why the world now looks to the E.U. - not to Google - to reverse the growing menace of absolutism and the monopoly of rights. The EU can stand for the double movement. It can represent the future and assert the dominion of democratic rights and the principles of a fair marketplace. These are the precious victories of a centuries-long struggle, and we dare not abandon them now. The author Shoshana Zuboff is the author of The Summons: Our Fight for the Soul of an Information Civilization(forthcoming, 2015). She is the Charles Edward Wilson Professor of Business Administration (retired) at the Harvard Business School and a Faculty Associate at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. @shoshanazuboff http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/the-digital-debate/shoshanna-zuboff-dark-google-12916679.html?printPagedArticle=true -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 3 04:23:07 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 09:23:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] CEO of Axel Springer: An open letter to Eric Schmidt Why we fear Google Message-ID: <004e01cf66a8$ea3dc7d0$beb95770$@gmail.com> I must say I'm astonished to have seen no reference to this extremely important article by the CEO of Axel Springer Corp. in any of the accounts of NetMundial amidst all of the uncritical celebrations of multistakeholderism. M ------------------------------------------------------------------- An open letter to Eric Schmidt Why we fear Google 17.04.2014 · Here for the first time, a German manager confesses his company’s total dependence on Google. What publishers are experiencing today is a sign of things to come: We will soon all belong to Google. An open letter to Eric Schmidt. Von Mathias Döpfner CEO of Axel Springer Corp. Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer SE, explains to Eric Schmidt, why the fear of Google is qualified Dear Eric Schmidt, In your text “Die Chancen des Wachstums” (English Version: “A Chance for Growth”) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, you reply to an article which this newspaper had published a few days earlier under the title “Angst vor Google” (“Fear of Google”). You repeatedly mention the Axel Springer publishing house. In the spirit of transparency I would like to reply with an open letter to highlight a couple of things from our point of view. (Deutsche Fassung: „Warum wir Google fürchten“ - Mathias Döpfners offener Brief an Eric Schmidt) We have known each other for many years, and have, as you state, had lengthy and frequent discussions on the relationship between European publishers and Google. As you know, I am a great admirer of Google’s entrepreneurial success. In just a few short years, starting in 1998, this company has grown to employ almost 50,000 people worldwide, generated sixty billion dollars in revenue last year, and has a current market capitalization of more than 350 billion dollars. Google is not only the biggest search engine in the world, but along with Youtube (the second biggest search engine in the world) it also has the largest video platform, with Chrome the biggest browser, with Gmail the most widely used e-mail provider, and with Android the biggest operating system for mobile devices. Your article rightly points out what fabulous impetus Google has given to growth of the digital economy. In 2013, Google made a profit of fourteen billion dollars. I take my hat off to this outstanding entrepreneurial performance. Google doesn’t need us. But we need Google In your text you refer to the marketing cooperation between Google and Axel Springer. We were also happy with it. But some of our readers have now interpreted this to mean that Axel Springer is evidently schizophrenic. On the one hand, Axel Springer is part of a European antitrust action against Google, and is in dispute with them regarding the issue of enforcement of German ancillary copyright prohibiting the stealing of content; on the other hand, Axel Springer not only benefits from the traffic it receives via Google but from Google’s algorithm for marketing the remaining space in its online advertising. You can call it schizophrenic – or liberal. Or, to use one of our Federal Chancellor’s favorite phrases: there is no alternative. We know of no alternative which could offer even partially comparable technological prerequisites for the automated marketing of advertising. And we cannot afford to give up this source of revenue because we desperately need the money for technological investments in the future. Which is why other publishers are increasingly doing the same. We also know of no alternative search engine which could maintain or increase our online reach. A large proportion of high quality journalistic media receives its traffic primarily via Google. In other areas, especially of a non-journalistic nature, customers find their way to suppliers almost exclusively though Google. This means, in plain language, that we – and many others – are dependent on Google. At the moment Google has a 91.2 percent search-engine market share in Germany. In this case, the statement “if you don’t like Google, you can remove yourself from their listings and go elsewhere” is about as realistic as recommending to an opponent of nuclear power that he just stop using electricity. He simply cannot do this in real life – unless he wants to join the Amish. Google’s employees are always extremely friendly to us and to other publishing houses, but we are not communicating with each other on equal terms. How could we? Google doesn’t need us. But we need Google. And we are also worlds apart economically. At fourteen billion dollars, Google’s annual profit is about twenty times that of Axel Springer. The one generates more profit per quarter than the revenues of the other in a whole year. Our business relationship is that of the Goliath of Google to the David of Axel Springer. When Google changed an algorithm, one of our subsidiaries lost 70 percent of its traffic within a few days. The fact that this subsidiary is a competitor of Google’s is certainly a coincidence. Not only economic, but also political We are afraid of Google. I must state this very clearly and frankly, because few of my colleagues dare do so publicly. And as the biggest among the small, perhaps it is also up to us to be the first to speak out in this debate. You wrote it yourself in your book: “We believe that modern technology platforms, such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple, are even more powerful than most people realize (...), and what gives them power is their ability to grow – specifically, their speed to scale. Almost nothing, short of a biological virus, can scale as quickly, efficiently or aggressively as these technology platforms and this makes the people who build, control, and use them powerful too.” The discussion about Google’s power is therefore not a conspiracy theory propagated by old-school diehards. You yourself speak of the new power of the creators, owners, and users. In the long term I’m not so sure about the users. Power is soon followed by powerlessness. And this is precisely the reason why we now need to have this discussion in the interests of the long-term integrity of the digital economy’s ecosystem. This applies to competition, not only economic, but also political. It concerns our values, our understanding of the nature of humanity, our worldwide social order and, from our own perspective, the future of Europe. The greatest opportunity in the last few decades As the situation stands, your company will play a leading role in the various areas of our professional and private lives – in the house, in the car, in healthcare, in robotronics. This is a huge opportunity and a no less serious threat. I am afraid that it is simply not enough to state, as you do, that you want to make the world a “better place.” The Internet critic Evgeny Morozov has clearly described the position that modern societies need to take here: This is not a debate about technology and the fascinating opportunities it presents. This is a political debate. Android devices and Google algorithms are not a government program. Or at least they shouldn’t be. It is we the people who have to decide whether or not we want what you are asking of us – and what price we are willing to pay for it. Publishers gained their experience here early – as the vanguard for other sectors and industries. But as long as it was simply a question of the expropriation of content (which search engines and aggregators use but don’t want to pay for), only a few were interested. But that changes when the same thing applies to people’s personal data. The question of who this data belongs to will be one of the key policy issues of the future. You say in your article that those who criticize Google are “ultimately criticizing the Internet as such and the opportunity for everyone to be able to access information from wherever they happen to be.” The opposite is true. Those who criticize Google are not criticizing the Internet. Those who are interested in having an intact Internet – these are the ones who need to criticize Google. From the perspective of a publishing house, the Internet is not a threat, but rather the greatest opportunity in the last few decades. 62 percent of our corporate profit today comes from our digital business. This means that we are not talking about the Internet here, but only about the role that Google plays within it. The „fair criteria“ are not in place It is in this context that of the utmost importance are competition complaints submitted four years ago by various European publishers’ associations and Internet companies against Google at the European Commission in Brussels. Google is a prime example of a market-dominating company. With a seventy-percent global market share, Google defines the infrastructure on the Internet. The next largest search engine is Baidu in China with 16.4 per cent – and that’s because China is a dictatorship which prohibits free access to Google. Then there are search engines with market shares of up to 6 percent. These are pseudo-competitors. The market belongs to a single company. Google’s share of the online-advertising market in Germany is increasing from year to year and is currently around 60 percent. For comparison: The Bild newspaper, which has been considered as market-dominating by the German Federal Cartel Office for decades (which is why Axel Springer was not allowed to buy the TV company Pro Sieben Sat.1 or regional newspapers), has a 9 percent market share of printed advertisements in Germany. By comparison Google is not only market-dominating but super market-dominating. Google is to the Internet what the Deutsche Post was to mail delivery or Deutsche Telekom to telephone calls. In those days there were national state monopolies. Today there is a global network monopoly. This is why it is of paramount importance that there be transparent and fair criteria for Google’s search results. However, these fair criteria are not in place. Google lists its own products, from e-commerce to pages from its own Google+ network, higher than those of its competitors, even if these are sometimes of less value for consumers and should not be displayed in accordance with the Google algorithm. It is not even clearly pointed out to the user that these search results are the result of self-advertising. Even when a Google service has fewer visitors than that of a competitor, it appears higher up the page until it eventually also receives more visitors. This is called the abuse of a market-dominating position. And everyone expected the European antitrust authorities to prohibit this practice. It does not look like it will. The Commissioner has instead proposed a “settlement” that has left anyone with any understanding of the issue speechless. Eric, in your article you talk about a compromise which you had attempted to reach with the EU Commission. What you have found, if the Commission does decide on the present proposal, is an additional model for Google of advertising revenue procurement. There will not be any “painful concessions” but rather additional earnings. A betrayal of the basic idea behind Google The Commission is seriously proposing that the infrastructure-dominating search engine Google be allowed to continue to discriminate against its competitors in the placement of search results critical to success. As “compensation,” however, a new advertising window will be set up at the beginning of the search list, in which those companies who are discriminated against will be able to buy a place on the list. This is not a compromise. This is an officially EU-sanctioned introduction of the business model that in less honorable circles is referred to as protection money – i.e. if you don’t want me to kill you, you have to pay me. Dear Eric Schmidt, You know very well that this would result in long-term discrimination against and weakening of any competition. Meaning that Google would be able to develop its superior market position still further. And that this would further weaken the European digital economy in particular. I honestly cannot imagine that this is what you meant by compromise. But I do not want to reproach you and Google for this. You, as the representative of the company, can and must look after its interests. My criticism is directed at the European Competition Commission. Commissioner Almunia ought to reflect once again on whether it is wise, as a kind of final official act, to create a situation that will go down in history as a nail in the coffin of the already sclerotic European Internet economy. But it would above all be a betrayal of the consumer, who will no longer be able to find what is most important and best for him but what is most profitable for Google – at the end a betrayal of the basic idea behind Google. A remarkably honest sentence This also applies to the large and even more problematic set of issues concerning data security and data utilization. Ever since Snowden triggered the NSA affair, ever since the close relations between major American online companies and the American secret services became public, the social climate – at least in Europe – has fundamentally changed. People have become more sensitive about what happens to their user data. Nobody knows as much about its customers as Google. Even private or business emails are read by Gmail and, if necessary, can be evaluated. You yourself said in 2010: “We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” This is a remarkably honest sentence. The question is: Are users happy with the fact that this information is used not only for commercial purposes – which may have many advantages, yet a number of spooky negative aspects as well – but could end up in the hands of the intelligence services and to a certain extent already has? In Patrick Tucker’s book The Naked Future: What Happens in a World that Anticipates Your Every Move?, whose vision of the future was considered to be “inescapable” by Google’s master thinker Vint Cerf, there is a scene which sounds like science fiction, but isn’t. Just imagine, the author writes, you wake up one morning and read the following on your phone: “Good morning! Today, as you leave work, you will run into your old girlfriend Vanessa (you dated her eleven years ago), and she is going to tell you that she is getting married. Do try to act surprised!” Because Vanessa has not told anyone yet. You of course are wondering just how your phone knew that or whether it’s a joke, and so you ignore the message. Then in the evening you actually pass Vanessa on the sidewalk. Can competition generally still function in the digital age? Vaguely remembering the text from the phone, you congratulate her on her engagement. Vanessa is alarmed: “‘How did you know I was engaged?’ she asks. You’re about to say, ‘My phone sent me the text,’ but you stop yourself just in time. ‘Didn’t you post something to your Facebook profile?’ you ask. ‘Not yet,’ she answers and walks hurriedly away. You should have paid attention to your phone and just acted surprised.” Google searches more than half a billion web addresses. Google knows more about every digitally active citizen than George Orwell dared to imagine in his wildest dreams in 1984. Google is sitting on the entire current data trove of humanity like the giant Fafner in The Ring of the Nibelung: “Here I lie and here I hold.” I hope you are aware of your company’s special responsibility. If fossil fuels were the fuels of the 20th century, then those of the 21st century are surely data and user profiles. We need to ask ourselves whether competition can generally still function in the digital age if data are so extensively concentrated in the hands of one party. There will be a winner There is a quote from you in this context that concerns me. In 2009 you said: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” The only sentence that is even more worrying comes from Mark Zuckerberg when he was on the podium of a conference with you and I in the audience. Someone asked what Facebook thinks of the storage of data and the protection of privacy. And Zuckerberg said: “I don’t understand your question. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.” Ever since then I have thought about this sentence again and again. I find it terrible. I know that it was certainly not meant that way. Behind this statement there is a state of mind and an image of humanity that is typically cultivated in totalitarian regimes – not in liberal societies. Such a statement could also have come from the head of East Germany’s Stasi or other secret police in service of a dictatorship. The essence of freedom is precisely the fact that I am not obliged to disclose everything that I am doing, that I have a right to confidentiality and, yes, even to secrets; that I am able to determine for myself what I wish to disclose about myself. The individual right to this is what makes a democracy. Only dictatorships want transparent citizens instead of a free press. Officials in Brussels are now thinking about how the total transparency of users can be avoided by restricting the setting and storage of cookies on the Internet (with which it is still possible today to find out which website you clicked on at 10.10 a.m. on 16. April 2006), in order to strengthen consumer rights. We do not yet know exactly how this regulation will turn out, any more than we know whether it will do more good than bad. But one thing is already certain – if it comes to pass, there will be a winner: Google. Because Google is considered by experts to be the absolute leader in the development of technologies which document the movements and habits of users without setting cookies. Something the EU has so sorely missed in the past Google has also made provisions as far as the antitrust proceedings in Brussels on fair search are concerned. It is expected that the whole procedure will be decided in Google’s favor. But if not, it would also be safeguarded. Concessions and restrictions that have been wrung out in lengthy proceedings, limited to Google’s European domains, would be ineffective in an agreement because Google is able, using Android or Chrome, to arbitrarily determine that the search will no longer be carried out from a web address but by using an app. This means that Google will be able to withdraw from all the commitments it has given, which to this day are still bound to the Google domains such as google.de. Will European politics cave in or wake up? The institutions in Brussels have never been so important. An archaic question of power is to be decided. Is there a chance for an autonomous European digital infrastructure or not? It is a question of competitiveness and viability for the future. Voluntary self-subjugation cannot be the last word from the Old World. On the contrary, the desire of the European digital economy to succeed could finally become something for European policy, which the EU has so sorely missed in the past few decades: an emotional narrative. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist 16 years of data storage and 16 years experience by tens of thousands of IT developers has established a competitive edge which can no longer be offset with economic resources alone. Since Google bought “Nest” it knows in even more detail what people do within their own four walls. And now Google is also planning driverless cars, in order to compete in the long term with the car industry from Toyota to VW. Google will then not only know where we drive our cars but how we are occupying ourselves when we are in the car. Forget Big Brother – Google is better! Against this background it greatly concerns me that Google – which has just announced the acquisition of drone manufacturer “Titan Aerospace” – has been seen for some time as being behind a number of planned enormous ships and floating working environments that can cruise and operate in the open ocean. What is the reason for this development? You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to find this alarming, especially if you listen to the words of Google founder and major shareholder Larry Page. What impact does it have on our society? He dreams of a place without data-protection laws and without democratic accountability. „There’s many, many exciting and important things you could do that you just can’t do because they’re illegal“, Page said back in 2013, continuing „ ...we should have some safe places where we can try out some new things and figure out what is the effect on society, what’s the effect on people, without having to deploy kind of into the normal world.“ Does this mean that Google is planning to operate in a legal vacuum, without troublesome antitrust authorities and data protection? A kind of superstate that can navigate its floating kingdom undisturbed by any and all nation-states and their laws? Until now the concerns were the following: What will happen if Google continues to expand its absolutely dominant market power? Will there be even less competition? Will the European digital economy be thrown back even further compared to the few American super corporations? Will consumers become even more transparent, more heteronomous and further manipulated by third parties – be it for economic or political interests? And what impact do these factors have on our society? It is not the fear of old analog dinosaurs After this disturbing news you need to ask yourself: Is Google in all seriousness planning for the digital supra-state in which one corporation is naturally only good to its citizens and of course “is not evil”? Please, dear Eric, explain to us why our interpretation of what Larry Page says and does is a misunderstanding. I am aware that the problems which are caused by new digital super-authorities such as Amazon and Facebook cannot be solved by Google alone. But Google could – for its own long-term benefit – set a good example. The company could create transparency, not only by providing search results according to clear quantitative criteria, but also by disclosing all the changes to algorithms. By not saving IP addresses, automatically deleting cookies after each session, and only saving customer behavior when specifically requested to do so by customers. And by explaining and demonstrating what it intends to do with its floating group headquarters and development labs. Because the fear of growing heteronomy by the all-determining spider in the web is not being driven by any old analog dinosaurs, who have not understood the Internet and are therefore afraid of everything new. It is rather the digital natives, and among them the most recent and best-informed, who have a growing problem with the increasingly comprehensive control by Google. Impressive and dangerous This also includes the fiction of the culture of free services. On the Internet, in the beautiful colorful Google world, so much seems to be free of charge: from search services up to journalistic offerings. In truth we are paying with our behavior – with the predictability and commercial exploitation of our behavior. Anyone who has a car accident today, and mentions it in an e-mail, can receive an offer for a new car from a manufacturer on his mobile phone tomorrow. Terribly convenient. Today, someone surfing high-blood-pressure web sites, who automatically betrays his notorious sedentary lifestyle through his Jawbone fitness wristband, can expect a higher health insurance premium the day after tomorrow. Not at all convenient. Simply terrible. It is possible that it will not take much longer before more and more people realize that the currency of his or her own behavior exacts a high price: the freedom of self-determination. And that is why it is better and cheaper to pay with something very old fashioned – namely money. Google is the world’s most powerful bank – but dealing only in behavioral currency. Nobody capitalizes on their knowledge about us as effectively as Google. This is impressive and dangerous. Is it really smart to wait? Dear Eric Schmidt, you do not need my advice, and of course I am writing here from the perspective of those concerned. As a profiteer from Google’s traffic. As a profiteer from Google’s automated marketing of advertising. And as a potential victim of Google’s data and market power. Nevertheless – less is sometimes more. And you can also win yourself to death. Historically, monopolies have never survived in the long term. Either they have failed as a result of their complacency, which breeds its own success, or they have been weakened by competition – both unlikely scenarios in Google’s case. Or they have been restricted by political initiatives. IBM and Microsoft are the most recent examples. Weitere Artikel Warum wir Google fürchten: Mathias Döpfner antwortet Eric Schmidt Eric Schmidt about the good Google does: A chance for growth Die Chancen des Wachstums: Eric Schmidt über das Gute an Google Von der Suchmaschine zur Weltmacht: Angst vor Google Ein Goliath macht sich ganz klein: Reaktionen auf Matthias Döpfners Google-Kritik Another way would be voluntary self-restraint on the part of the winner. Is it really smart to wait until the first serious politician demands the breakup of Google? Or even worse – until the people refuse to follow? While they still can? We most definitely no longer can. Sincerely Yours Mathias Döpfner -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 3 06:20:38 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 12:20:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 An: Jean-Christophe Nothias Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Cher Jean-Christophe, honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. Merci et bon vent. Best, Rafik ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. You have the floor on this. JC Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat May 3 07:25:43 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 13:25:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 Message-ID: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> And then there was the third day. The last day. We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed was to reach full consensus. As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting illusion. We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do next. We had lunch. We talked, and we talked. After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report and be fair. Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a plague.) As for the future, there may be further meetings. There may not be. If there are, they may occur this year. Or they may occur next year. I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is going to do. I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And to see civil society members working closely with governments and with business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on the few things we do disagree with. Now I sound almost maudlin! One last thing: There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now Who knows what the future will bring. ---------------------- The Opinion This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants including group members Avri Doria, ... --- Definitions Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the Internet at all levels. Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Possible outcome: There is support within civil society for establishing a multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the area of Internet governance. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat May 3 07:26:23 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 13:26:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] World Press Freedom Day In-Reply-To: <09AA95D6-DBA5-4A82-AC72-4A5981BFF98A@gmail.com> References: <09AA95D6-DBA5-4A82-AC72-4A5981BFF98A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5364D25F.6060706@acm.org> Hi, It is good you mention this. I just listened to a report on Press Freedom on AlJazeera and more than just having a long way to go, it seems that things are getting worse. I do not know what the rest of us can do, other than make sure this issue stays near the top of the list oniInternational issues on the other days of the year, but something most be done. If we lose journalism and the light it shines, we will have lost one of the greatest of our checks and balances on government, corporate and civil society misdeeds. Thanks for the reminder. Here's wishing the journalists on this list and everywhere a safe day and a safe year. We count on you. avri On 02-May-14 23:25, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > As we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, I pay tribute to all the > journalists who have lost their lives or been imprisoned, for their role > in reporting. The Press no doubt have always held an edge in shaping > popular opinion by virtue of their reach. Whilst the Internet has > leveled the playing field by virtue of its ubiquitous nature and enabled > ordinary men, women, boys, girls to "free" their stories via the > internet through social media, one cannot discount the power of the > "written word" or "picture" and "sound". > > Countries still have a long way to go on Press Freedom as the Press is > still stifled in certain parts of the world. For indicators, > see: http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2014/press-freedom-numbers#.U2P4DimLRHc.twitter > > As we celebrate the Day, the themes that come to the fore of my > reflections include: > 1)Freedom of Expression > 2)The Responsibility to Report Ethically (in a manner that allows the > intended audience in developing a clear 3D perspective on whatever issues > 3)The value of securing the newsworthy item has a cost on someone's life > security etc. > 4)The need for societies to mature to fully embrace the role of a free press > 5)The wisdom needed for local, domestic press in reaching out to diverse > stakeholders to educate people on the need to be free and informed. > > The Internet Governance forums and debates provide an excellent platform > to enable and facilitate outreach, dialogue and discussion as it brings > stakeholders to the table to discuss critical issues. > > To all the journalists subscribed to the IGC list, here's wishing you an > excellent day! > > With every best wish, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat May 3 10:13:35 2014 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (divina.meigs) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 16:13:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] UNESCO, World Press Freedom Day and Internet Study Message-ID: Dear all Please note that UNESCO is organizing the World Press Freedom Day Event in Paris during 5-6 May. It will hold a side event: ³Multi-stakeholder Consultation on UNESCO¹s Comprehensive Study on the Internet ², which will be held at 15:00-16:30 on 6 May. It will explore Internet-related issues and future options within the UNESCO mandate. This event is a part of global multi-stakeholder consultation process on this study as UNESCO has just launched in April. As set in the UNESCO General Conference Resolution 52, the Study covers the following four fields within the UNESCO mandate: (i) Access to information and knowledge, (ii) Freedom of expression, (iii) Privacy, and (iv) Ethical dimensions of the information society. It also explores possible options for future actions in these fields. The guiding framework of the study is the draft concept of ³Internet Universality ², which summarizes the Internet¹s core principles relevant to UNESCO¹s mandate and fields of competence, namely that the Internet should be : (i) Human Rights-based (ii) ³Open², (iii) ³Accessible to All², and (iv) nurtured by Multi-stakeholder Participation. i¹ll be part of the contributors and will try to instill some of the outcomes of NetMundial in the consultation. If you have any priorities to convey, let me knowŠ Best Divina Frau-Meigs Professor, Sorbonne Nouvelle, ANR TRANSLIT Director CLEMI UNESCO Chair « savoir-devenir/forwardances in durable digital development » > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Sat May 3 11:38:18 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:38:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] CEO of Axel Springer: An open letter to Eric Schmidt Why we fear Google In-Reply-To: <004e01cf66a8$ea3dc7d0$beb95770$@gmail.com> References: <004e01cf66a8$ea3dc7d0$beb95770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I must say I'm astonished to have seen no reference to this extremely > important article by the CEO of Axel Springer Corp. in any of the accounts > of NetMundial amidst all of the uncritical celebrations of > multistakeholderism. > > M > While not here, it was covered in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/international/in-germany-strong-words-over-googles-power.html -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 3 12:12:07 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:12:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> Message-ID: <20140503181207.709acd12@quill> Rafik Dammak wrote: > > I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full > > involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector, > > for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of > > proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different > > countries choose to adopt different public policy options. > > good to hear that you are in support of multistaekholder process, I quite generally support multistakeholder processes in any context of governance as long as they're set up appropriately to not undermine or endanger principles of democracy. > that was not indicated in your first message. Well there was a link to a quite detailed proposal which is all about such processes. I'll admit though that this proposal I-D currently suffers from the problem that it is so long that only relatively few people will read it, and I still haven't gotten around to putting a decent summary together. > > interests of different stakeholder groups. These insights should > > then be provided to national parliaments so that the choice between > > different public policy possibilities, each justifiable and right > > from some perspective, will be made in a democratic manner, on the > > basis of the best possible information. > > > > > again good to see your explanation for supporting the multistakeholder > model with such level of details. I don't think it accurate to say that there is a single, "the" multistakeholder model. Just like there is no single "the" state based model. For example, even though in 1848 (!) the system of the Swiss parliament was modeled on the US system, the practical dynamics are totally different. > I responded to your when you were > defending the state based model and giving privileges to governments > even when you recognise the drawbacks. I would consider the model which I'm proposing, which assigns a pivotal role to national parliaments, to be a very much state based model. Even if it is at the same time very much a multistakeholder process oriented model. > > In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously > > have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the > > human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points > > should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world > > where the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like > > is the case for me) from being allowed to insist that we value > > democracy, and we don't want to lose it, even when the line between > > Internet governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming > > more and more blurred. > so you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian > regimes and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work > for you as swiss citizen ? how can this embed the democracy values > you are defending? I'm perfectly willing to provide any and all support to assist those who are currently under authoritarian regimes as long as the support that is asked is within the constraints of what I am able to provide, and as long as providing this support would not undermine democracy where it currently exists. When we talk about authoritarian regimes, we talk about governments who routinely violate the human rights of their citizens in various ways. Will such regimes be impressed if everyone outside their country agrees that states should have no special role in Internet governance? I think not, no more than they are impressed by the UDHR and the various human rights treaties. So in my view the proposed action (of denouncing the Tunis Agenda assertion that states have a special role in regard to public policy) would not only have (potentially, at least) dangerous side effects on democracy where it exists, it would also be totally ineffective at addressing the very real problems in the various countries that are in fact totalitarian. By contrast, I would support efforts aimed at spelling out what are and what are not appropriate types of business deals with entities in such countries. For example I would propose that providing uncensored(*) Internet connectivity to such entities is always a positive thing to do, even if you know that the ordinary people within the country will be subjected to a "great firewall" kind of thing. By contrast, delivering any software or consulting service where the primary purpose it to improve such a "great firewall" should be a no-no, etc. I would go so far to say that once it is reasonably clear what are from a moral and human rights perspective the no-no, legislation which forbids commercial activities of that type would be a good thing. Of course, when I talk of legislation, I'm again suggesting that (democratic!) states would take on a special role. I don't know how much this kind of embargo would help the people in totalitarian countries, but at least we wouldn't be guilty of contributing to making the situation worse. Other measures might be more effective. The idea of smuggling inspirational literature (e.g. about the life and the ideas of such heroes as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela) into such countries, in paper form or electronic form, comes to mind. More effective yet might be fixing the shortcomings in regard to social justice shortcomings which we have in the practice of our democratic states, for example in regard to how our "Western" countries deal with the rest of the world: If we can rob the dictators of the grains of truth which currently still exist in the excuses and ideologies that they use to justify oppression, the likelihood of collapse of those oppressive systems might be greatly increased. Greetings, Norbert (*) With "uncensored" I mean here: Free from any kind of censorship of communications content. There's of course nothing wrong with reasonable network management practices such as discarding packets that are malformed or whose source addresses are clearly forged. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 3 12:17:33 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:17:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58D74CC4-BDF9-4332-8740-8FD333E3EECA@gmail.com> Cher Rafik, If you do not mind, I'll keep for a one-to-one exchange my comments about your ad hominen comments. No big deal. As opinionated I can be - sorry for that - I did not attack you. I can read that I expressed my surprise, asked questions, and expected answers. None of the latter came through so far. 1/This space is an open space, so I feel like I can mention/quote other views participating on these lists. Wolfgang's views are part of that pubic space/debate, as he made them public here and in many other venues, and I am happy that he has just made a new comment about democracy/multistakeholderism. 2/When you first replied to Norbert, you we characterizing and interpreting his views and wrote: > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? These were your first sentences, and it made me react. Norbert's position is clear to many familiar with that list. This, in my opinion was tenuous and flimsy, and to some degree unfair/vehement. And if indeed you are "not liable for other opinions nor have to explain them", you have to assume your interpretation of them. I presume we can agree that you introductory argument is no fashion Norbert's views, nor of many others CS on the same page regarding multistakeholderism. 3/ I decide for my own judgement indeed and I don't feel anyone can blame me for that. Same with everyone. This has nothing to do with this other speculation: "putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not." Tu connais le dicton: chacun devrait balayer devant sa porte. 3/ This one was fun: "you don't value democracy much more than me." Who's putting himself into my own skin? I do value democracy a great deal. I think (hope) you too, let be put aside your comment. 4/ But when you conclude your comments to Norbert's second email, again you suppose/imagine his position "So you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian regimes and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work for you as swiss citizen ? There is a question mark at the end of your sentence but was this a question, or an affirmation with a question mark? The way you conclude, on top of that speculation, is again a bit excessive : how can this embed the democracy values you are defending? 5/ The McKinsey report is very much about our debate, and there you would have much more to comment about than about my own style. I only see it as fully relevant to the debate over IG. The private sector has invented the lobbying model/process/dialogue to influence public authorities and sphere. What is multistakeholderism? I see it as the next best stage of lobbying. (Lobbying from inside the public sphere, seems to be much more efficient than lobbying from outside the public sphere). 6/ As Norbert told you, I am of the same opinion that multistakeholder dialogue is welcome. I am more confused about the meaning of what is a Multistakeholder process, and in complete opposition to the more politically oriented "multiskateholder" model. So far multistakeholderism seems to consider roles as being fluctuant, and changing as needed. Isn't this a bit vague according to your understanding of multistakeholderism? For a democrat me or any other, this language is not acceptable. Would you say that my answer is vehemently written? It is not my impression. Up to you indeed to see it differently. Up to you as well to skip answering or going into real points. That is about discussing or not discussing. Bon vent à toi aussi. JC Le 3 mai 2014 à 05:43, Rafik Dammak a écrit : > Cher Jean-Christophe, > > honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: > - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. > - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. > - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. > - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. > > finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. > Merci et bon vent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" > > 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat May 3 13:51:10 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:51:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140503181207.709acd12@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> <20140503181207.709acd12@quill> Message-ID: Hi all, I support parag. 35 of the Tunis agenda, until we have a better choice. MSism equal footing in public policy decision making is a snare. . Louis - - - On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Rafik Dammak wrote: > > [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat May 3 16:00:34 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 16:00:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism Message-ID: I feel a little as if I were in Hans Andersen's “The Emperor's New Clothes” story. So let me take on the role of the little child near the end of the story who said "But he hasn't got anything on." Internet governance, as far as I am concerned, is an issue of global concern. It is too far-reaching in its effects to be limited to any one sector of the global community. I understand multistakeholder to offer greater inclusion, or, since I find myself using the comparative “greater” without being clear about “greater than what?”, then I understand multistakeholder to be a precaution against limitation to a single sector. Multistakeholder means that many different voices, with many different opinions, will be heard. However everyone seems to have a different answer to “what is a stakeholder?” and to the issue of whether stakeholders are: a) groups b) individuals or c) a combination of both Does anyone here have an answer, and if c), how is an equitable balance of power to be achieved? Also three terms seem to be used interchangeably in discussion: a) multistakeholderism b) multistakeholder model c) multistakeholder process I would like to know about the process as it refers to decision making. I followed the Netmundial meeting as a remote participant. The final decision making process had no remote access, so I am unable to comment on it. However, earlier today in a message to the governance list (et alia) in the thread “Roles and Responsibilities” Wolfgang Kleinwachter, discussing multistakeholderism and democracy, stated “ And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism.” But what are these criteria? In the same message Kleinwachter offers: In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. So what in fact is the actual process of "shared decision making? How is it done and how is that particular way of doing it “better”? And what about the actual process of "bottom up policy development"? How is it more than standing in line to speak at an open microphone? I should really like to know, and I'm hoping to hear from several people so that I can learn from the whole range of views in one place. Thank you Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 3 21:40:29 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:40:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 In-Reply-To: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> References: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks for this summary, very interesting. I think it would be unwise to neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation, which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the attached document, cross fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial, reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough consensus on multistakeholder action. This would be a welcome input to discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive, with substantive action items like this to build on. Personally, while I sure understand that everyone is tired, I don’t believe we can sit on our hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to the next level. Thanks Stephanie On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > And then there was the third day. > The last day. > > We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated > arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached > consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed > was to reach full consensus. > > As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full > consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must > confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting > illusion. > > We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups > discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do next. > > We had lunch. > We talked, > and we talked. > > After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were > not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. > > So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. > > Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! > > We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. > > Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report > and be fair. > > Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to > be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. > > We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by > the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a > living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the > CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be > dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had > not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill > > (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please > forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the > meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy > volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their > efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the > workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a plague.) > > As for the future, there may be further meetings. > There may not be. > If there are, they may occur this year. > Or they may occur next year. > > I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until > after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all > stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that > NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something > from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is > going to do. > > I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I > hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are > part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. > > And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of > the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and > Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this > meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of > marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there > are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And > to see civil society members working closely with governments and with > business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we > disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on > the few things we do disagree with. > > Now I sound almost maudlin! > > One last thing: > > There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick > Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as > we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a > possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by > any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who > worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put > themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this > compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of > ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. > > Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now > Who knows what the future will bring. > > ---------------------- > The Opinion > > This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants > including group members Avri Doria, ... > > --- > Definitions > > Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral > process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise > and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full > participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the > Internet at all levels. > > Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any > person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. > > Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all > stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of > the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet > governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and > responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with > reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by > governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, > contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number > of people that a representative may claim. > > Possible outcome: > > There is support within civil society for establishing a > multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and > analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing > of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments > and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view > this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group > of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support > within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder > coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue > or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be > accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. > > This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such > the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission > on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable > venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the > NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. > > The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. > The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted > from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for > ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an > impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet > governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder > models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in > line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a > static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever > more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be > treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build > our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the > area of Internet governance. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 3 21:42:10 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 07:12:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Roles and Responsibilities In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <53659AF2.7010505@itforchange.net> Wolfgang While 'ideal-typical' descriptions of democracy and democratic mechanisms are widely known and written about, I see none readily available for multistkeholder-ism. Vague motherhood and apple pie statements about openness, accountability, bottom-up and so on do not add up to much. We need to know what kind of actual processes are we talking about, and the political principles underlying them. On the other hand, coming to the 'practical level'; you describe many different 'in practice' models of democracy and we agree that some of them are good and not others. For instance, the Swiss model comes close to what we may all aspire for. In many other places, democratic movements are underway which are extremely disaffected with existing democratic models and are trying to create change from below, through movement building (mind you, none of them use the 'multistakeholder' term, and would reject out of hand any kind of corporate- government -civil society political equality). In India, there is considerable 'formal' bottom-up democracy with a lot of development related decision 'formally' in the hands of village- assemblies consisting of the entire adult population of the village. Now, this still hardly works, but formal -- constitutional - provisions exist and grassroots organizations are fighting day in day out to claim them in practice (again nothing to do with any kind of multistakeholderism). Now, while you rightly say that there are many kinds of democracies in practice, and we should be particular about what are we talking about, employing a similar yardstick, would it also not hold that there are many types of possible multistakeholder processes. And therefore we cannot simply say someone is against or for multistakeholder processes but only (usefully) talk about particular set of specific political processes that we want to call as multistakeholder, and support. If such specificity is required for democracy, it should be even more required about this vague new thing named MS ism. Do you agree with me this far? Now, I, and groups that I work with, support some kind of mutltstakeholder processes, which we have called 'democratic multistakeholder processes'. We are glad that the NetMundial outcome document accommodates our request to use this term. Presently, in a separate I will share clear principles and mechanisms of what we call as 'democratic MS processes'. Meanwhile, I request to know from you what kind of specific MS processes that you support, and then we can discuss something concrete. Lets stop this 'I am good, you are bad' because 'I support MS processes and you dont' game, and be specific. When you describe your version of MS processes and mechanism, I will request specific attention and information on the following; 1. What is the relationship of these MS processes to representative democratic processes? 2. Whether stakeholder reps are allowed to wield public policy decision making power? If so, what kind of powers, and on what political basis? 3. What are the legitimate means of selecting stakeholder reps, who without doubt, whatever be your response to 2 above, do exercise considerable political power in MS processes based polity? 4. On what basis corporate entities are considered at a similar political level and legitimacy as collectivities of natural people, who, traditional, alone are legitimate political subjects? We need to focus on this 'central' political innovation that MS ism (of the non democratic kind) has contributed and which is the focus of most of criticism of the such MS models. 5. And since they clearly exercise political power, should there be not similar (or higher) transparency and accountability standards for various levels of MS reps as we demand from public reps in the best models of democracy -- like complete disclosure of interests, constituencies represented, funding and other resource linkages, and so on... There are other elements, but lets start with these... Parminder On Saturday 03 May 2014 03:50 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. > > On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. > > On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. > > In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. > > Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak > Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 > An: Jean-Christophe Nothias > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > > Cher Jean-Christophe, > > honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: > - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. > - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. > - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. > - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. > > finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. > Merci et bon vent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" > > 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : > > > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 3 21:49:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 07:19:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Roles and Responsibilities In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <53659CAE.8070004@itforchange.net> On Saturday 03 May 2014 03:50 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. In that case, you would perhaps agree to begin using a specific term like 'democratic multistakeholder processes' and elaborating its basic principles and mechanisms. What about building such an initiative. parminder > Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. > > On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. > > On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. > > In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. > > Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak > Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 > An: Jean-Christophe Nothias > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > > Cher Jean-Christophe, > > honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: > - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. > - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. > - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. > - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. > > finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. > Merci et bon vent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" > > 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : > > > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 3 22:06:22 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 22:06:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> Message-ID: <98E73276-8349-4F7E-ADB8-28EE016A165E@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Mike, that would definitely be the one I am worried about. cheers steph PS at our last EWG meeting in LA, where I was near brain dead, they fed us heavy ( I won’t say flour-less, but going in that direction) chocolate brownies at tea breaks. Provided a new lease on life….Perhaps we could find a donor who could ship us each a box, so we can get going again…. On May 3, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > Stephanie¹s admonition is especially true in light of possibility that > internet initiatives may emerge in the ITU Plenipotentiary in October. > Definitely better to get more work done sooner. > > > ‹Mike > > > -- > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > > Skype mnemonic1026 > Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > > > > On 5/3/14, 9:40 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" > wrote: > >> Thanks for this summary, very interesting. I think it would be unwise to >> neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation, >> which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the >> attached document, cross fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial, >> reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and >> therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough >> consensus on multistakeholder action. This would be a welcome input to >> discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from >> arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive, >> with substantive action items like this to build on. Personally, while I >> sure understand that everyone is tired, I don¹t believe we can sit on our >> hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to >> the next level. >> Thanks >> Stephanie >> On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> And then there was the third day. >>> The last day. >>> >>> We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated >>> arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached >>> consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed >>> was to reach full consensus. >>> >>> As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full >>> consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must >>> confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting >>> illusion. >>> >>> We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups >>> discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do >>> next. >>> >>> We had lunch. >>> We talked, >>> and we talked. >>> >>> After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were >>> not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. >>> >>> So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. >>> >>> Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! >>> >>> We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. >>> >>> Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report >>> and be fair. >>> >>> Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to >>> be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. >>> >>> We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by >>> the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a >>> living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the >>> CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be >>> dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had >>> not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill >>> >>> (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please >>> forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the >>> meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy >>> volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their >>> efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the >>> workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a >>> plague.) >>> >>> As for the future, there may be further meetings. >>> There may not be. >>> If there are, they may occur this year. >>> Or they may occur next year. >>> >>> I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until >>> after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all >>> stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that >>> NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something >>> from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is >>> going to do. >>> >>> I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I >>> hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are >>> part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. >>> >>> And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of >>> the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and >>> Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this >>> meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of >>> marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there >>> are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And >>> to see civil society members working closely with governments and with >>> business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we >>> disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on >>> the few things we do disagree with. >>> >>> Now I sound almost maudlin! >>> >>> One last thing: >>> >>> There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick >>> Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as >>> we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a >>> possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by >>> any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who >>> worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put >>> themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this >>> compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of >>> ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. >>> >>> Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now >>> Who knows what the future will bring. >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> The Opinion >>> >>> This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants >>> including group members Avri Doria, ... >>> >>> --- >>> Definitions >>> >>> Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral >>> process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise >>> and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full >>> participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the >>> Internet at all levels. >>> >>> Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any >>> person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. >>> >>> Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all >>> stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of >>> the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet >>> governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and >>> responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with >>> reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by >>> governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, >>> contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number >>> of people that a representative may claim. >>> >>> Possible outcome: >>> >>> There is support within civil society for establishing a >>> multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and >>> analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing >>> of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments >>> and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view >>> this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group >>> of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support >>> within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder >>> coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue >>> or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be >>> accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. >>> >>> This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such >>> the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission >>> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable >>> venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the >>> NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. >>> >>> The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. >>> The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted >>> from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for >>> ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an >>> impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet >>> governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder >>> models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in >>> line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a >>> static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever >>> more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be >>> treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build >>> our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the >>> area of Internet governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat May 3 22:45:05 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 04:45:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, your concern is legitimate. The response is very simple. IG is a political issue. Politics as per Aristotle is the art of commanding free men. We are in the middle of a "singularity",. Raymond Kurzwell (Google) believes that this is when machines will start replacing people. It is more probably a big change in the human society: politics is now the arts of commanding free digitaly networked men. This creates new additional business and power opportunities we are not yet used to. They challenge market shares and established sovereignties, but open new frontiers. This is why there are two strategies to respond this singularity: we are in the process of switching from the first to the second one. 1. "status-quo": one tries to keep things unchanged to protect the old equilibrium in constraining innovation. This is the strategy of the established dominants: M$, Telcos, etc. supported by the USG executive branch (NTIA), i.e. international relations. 2. "internationalization": one tries to "internationalize" the new territories' legal, contractual, conventional, etc. environment. This is another term for "e-colonization". This is the strategy of the emerging edge providers new dominants. Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc. The transition from status-quo to internationalization has been supported since 1977 by the USG (FCC, NTIA). It has entered in a new phase of its strategic evolution toward the legal branch, the US globality switch from international to domestic affairs. The problem is that the world is not yet fully ruled by the Congress along a democratic process. An "international domestic virtuality" democratic substitute had to be found. This is "multistkeholderism". It puts e-colonized-States and Edge-Providers on a legal footing basis. This is the TPP/TAFTA core idea: an US lawyer panel can arbitrate between US TNC (transnational corporation) and States of the "international domestic virtuality" when their democratic legislations are hurting their interests. The people of the world must pay their democacy to the US TNCs. You bet that at this political level, no one is interested in knowing what people (those unable to engage into a class-action) may think, and dominants are only interested in keeping the others quite. This is the purpose of lists such /1net: to make their participants believe they are important, pay them to attend useless meeting round the world, etc. so they cooperate, in order to prevent at leas two problems from happening. These two problems are that the Emperor is not only naked but also not an emperor. 1. he is not an emperor. The Emperor wants to "be unilateraly global". This is a "bug". No one can be the center of the entire world. Only the Emperor of China believed he was. 2. he is naked because, if his law may induce code, code becoms law. Code is the clothes. The Emperor wants to make believe he controls the code (e.g. the root). But the network code is designed by engineers for those who need it. There are two resulting tactics to control code: 1. to make States believe they do not need alternative code (ICANN/GAC) 2. to delay prevent the Multitude (the not yet marketingly brain washed people) from demanding and using such alternative code. This is done by story telling (e.g. need of a unique root - countered by ICANN's own ICP3 document), "internet balkanization" to describe resistance to e-colonization, etc. Now it is filtering alternative credible propositions (such as VGN analysis). In this context, you bet that nobody cares about who is a "stakeholder". There are market share holders (edge providers), state holders (NTIA, EU, China, Russia), internet structural status holders (RIRs), technical rights holders (IETF Trust) and net holders (ISP, Telcos). Period, never mind about users: they only are those who pay and buy: making them to believe they are stakeholder will only make them to chant the beauties of MSism and help e-colonizing. However, there is a still small irritating irruptive group: the independent users (IUsers) who know how an intelligent use (IUse) of the interneted (protocols) catenet (global network system) can keep them independent, i.e. free from the Emperor, because they know that he is stark naked. The priority is to prevent them to get an audience. Then all the old political tricks are good enough. (e.g. "alliance.fsp4 at gmail", the MS collective mail address of the young initiative for a "fail-secure plan for the net" is denied subscription to the /1net and NTIAtransition lists. After all, these people oppose ICANN. What is mean is that ICANN only disregards the registrations (automatically?) instead of plainly responsibly rejecting it. The Emperor fakes that he does not hear those who tell he is naked. jfc At 22:00 03/05/2014, Deirdre Williams wrote: >I feel a little as if I were in Hans Andersen's >“The >Emperor's New Clothes” story. So let me take on the role of the >little child near the end of the story who said "But he hasn't got >anything on." > >Internet governance, as far as I am concerned, is an issue of global >concern. It is too far-reaching in its effects to be limited to any >one sector of the global community. I understand multistakeholder to >offer greater inclusion, or, since I find myself using the >comparative “greater” without being clear about “greater than >what?”, then I understand multistakeholder to be a precaution >against limitation to a single sector. Multistakeholder means that >many different voices, with many different opinions, will be heard. > >However everyone seems to have a different answer to “what is a >stakeholder?” and to the issue of whether stakeholders are: > >a) groups > >b) individuals or > >c) a combination of both > >Does anyone here have an answer, and if c), how is an equitable >balance of power to be achieved? > > > >Also three terms seem to be used interchangeably in discussion: > >a) multistakeholderism > >b) multistakeholder model >c) multistakeholder process I would like to know about the process >as it refers to decision making. I followed the Netmundial meeting >as a remote participant. The final decision making process had no >remote access, so I am unable to comment on it. However, earlier >today in a message to the governance list (et alia) in the thread >“Roles and Responsibilities” Wolfgang Kleinwachter, discussing >multistakeholderism and democracy, stated “ And Net Mundial has >produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. >Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative >democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of >democracy/multistakeholderism.” But what are these criteria? In >the same message Kleinwachter offers: In a democracy it is the >separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent >press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. >In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, >bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. > >So what in fact is the actual process of "shared decision making? >How is it done and how is that particular way of doing it >“better”? And what about the actual process of "bottom up policy >development"? How is it more than standing in line to speak at an >open microphone? > >I should really like to know, and I'm hoping to hear from several >people so that I can learn from the whole range of views in one place. > >Thank you > >Deirdre > >-- >“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun May 4 03:42:24 2014 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:42:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] UNESCO, World Press Freedom Day and Internet Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Divina, Thank you very much for this information! Will you have remote participation? Best regards, Oksana On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:13 PM, divina.meigs wrote: > Dear all > Please note that UNESCO is organizing the World Press Freedom Day Event in > Paris during 5-6 May. It will hold a side event: ³Multi-stakeholder > Consultation on UNESCO¹s Comprehensive Study on the Internet ², which will > be held at 15:00-16:30 on 6 May. It will explore Internet-related issues > and future options within the UNESCO mandate. This event is a part of > global multi-stakeholder consultation process on this study as UNESCO has > just launched in April. > > > As set in the UNESCO General Conference Resolution 52, the Study covers > the following four fields within the UNESCO mandate: (i) Access to > information and knowledge, (ii) Freedom of expression, (iii) Privacy, and > (iv) Ethical dimensions of the information society. It also explores > possible options for future actions in these fields. The guiding > framework of the study is the draft concept of ³Internet Universality > < > http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/open_consulta > tion_on_unesco_new_concept_internet_universality/#.Ux2p_GeYZMv>², which > summarizes the Internet¹s core principles relevant to UNESCO¹s mandate and > fields of competence, namely that the Internet should be : (i) Human > Rights-based (ii) ³Open², (iii) ³Accessible to All², and (iv) nurtured by > Multi-stakeholder Participation. > > i¹ll be part of the contributors and will try to instill some of the > outcomes of NetMundial in the consultation. If you have any priorities to > convey, let me knowŠ > > Best > Divina Frau-Meigs > Professor, Sorbonne Nouvelle, ANR TRANSLIT > Director CLEMI > UNESCO Chair « savoir-devenir/forwardances in durable digital development > » > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun May 4 05:36:17 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 11:36:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: Roles and Responsibilities Message-ID: <1024872703.5865.1399196177664.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c14>   Thanks, Parminder, for this comment and its suggested ideas for this fundamental debate.    I'd just remind the readers and members of our lists that WSIS (where we all grew-up together :-) ) is the ground where MSism is "the alpha and the omega" of the official discourse and where it stands for being the basis and rule in debates and decision-making.   But, just for giving one example, WHO among the "stakeholders" decided the creation of the Global Broadband Commission ? And WHO nominated its two co-chairs,  Slim and Kagame, each one a "model" of its kind in ethics and democracy ? I didn't hear nor see any CS MSism-enthusiast from these lists questioning the audience about this misuse of the WSIS fundamentals during the debates.What's more,and probably as a compensation, some "heavy weight CS represntatives" were nominated (!) in the same way (and they accepted that ...)  as members of this MS branded UN Commission. MS-ism in all its splendor !   Greetings   Jean-Louis Fullsack         > Message du 04/05/14 03:45 > De : "parminder" > A : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Rafik Dammak" , "Jean-Christophe Nothias" > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Adam Peake" , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Objet : [governance] Re: Roles and Responsibilities > > Wolfgang While 'ideal-typical' descriptions of democracy and democratic mechanisms are widely known and written about, I see none readily available for multistkeholder-ism. Vague motherhood and apple pie statements about openness, accountability, bottom-up and so on do not add up to much. We need to know what kind of actual processes are we talking about, and the political principles underlying them. On the other hand, coming to the 'practical level'; you describe many different 'in practice' models of democracy and we agree that some of them are good and not others. For instance, the Swiss model comes close to what we may all aspire for. In many other places, democratic movements are underway which are extremely disaffected with existing democratic models and are trying to create change from below, through movement building (mind you, none of them use the 'multistakeholder' term, and would reject out of hand any kind of corporate- government -civil society political equality). In India, there is considerable 'formal' bottom-up democracy with a lot of development related decision 'formally' in the hands of village- assemblies consisting of the entire adult population of the village. Now, this still hardly works, but formal – constitutional - provisions exist and grassroots organizations are fighting day in day out to claim them in practice (again nothing to do with any kind of multistakeholderism). Now, while you rightly say that there are many kinds of democracies in practice, and we should be particular about what are we talking about, employing a similar yardstick, would it also not hold that there are many types of possible multistakeholder processes. And therefore we cannot simply say someone is against or for multistakeholder processes but only (usefully) talk about particular set of specific political processes that we want to call as multistakeholder, and support. If such specificity is required for democracy, it should be even more required about this vague new thing named MS ism. Do you agree with me this far? Now, I, and groups that I work with, support some kind of mutltstakeholder processes, which we have called 'democratic multistakeholder processes'. We are glad that the NetMundial outcome document accommodates our request to use this term. Presently, in a separate I will share clear principles and mechanisms of what we call as 'democratic MS processes'. Meanwhile, I request to know from you what kind of specific MS processes that you support, and then we can discuss something concrete. Lets stop this 'I am good, you are bad' because 'I support MS processes and you dont' game, and be specific. When you describe your version of MS processes and mechanism, I will request specific attention and information on the following; What is the relationship of these MS processes to representative democratic processes? Whether stakeholder reps are allowed to wield public policy decision making power? If so, what kind of powers, and on what political basis? What are the legitimate means of selecting stakeholder reps, who without doubt, whatever be your response to 2 above, do exercise considerable political power in MS processes based polity? On what basis corporate entities are considered at a similar political level and legitimacy as collectivities of natural people, who, traditional, alone are legitimate political subjects? We need to focus on this 'central' political innovation that MS ism (of the non democratic kind) has contributed and which is the focus of most of criticism of the such MS models. And since they clearly exercise political power, should there be not similar (or higher) transparency and accountability standards for various levels of MS reps as we demand from public reps in the best models of democracy – like complete disclosure of interests, constituencies represented, funding and other resource linkages, and so on... There are other elements, but lets start with these... Parminder > > > On Saturday 03 May 2014 03:50 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 An: Jean-Christophe Nothias Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Cher Jean-Christophe, honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. Merci et bon vent. Best, Rafik ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. You have the floor on this. JC Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun May 4 06:05:22 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:05:22 +1000 Subject: [governance] Big Data - Big Problem Message-ID: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/527071/five-things-obamas-big-data-experts-warned-him-about/?utm_campaign=socialsync&utm_medium=social-post&utm_source=twitter#comments -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 4 06:11:12 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:11:12 +1000 Subject: [governance] Big Data - Big Problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F9411DA0DF54E40868F55774686C67D@Toshiba> cleaner link http://www.technologyreview.com/view/527071/five-things-obamas-big-data-experts-warned-him-about/ From: Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Big Data - Big Problem http://www.technologyreview.com/view/527071/five-things-obamas-big-data-experts-warned-him-about/?utm_campaign=socialsync&utm_medium=social-post&utm_source=twitter#comments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 5 03:49:48 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 09:49:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial Message-ID: <20140505094948.72e5d2c7@quill> Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome Document: http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed by different actors in the future. For the Just Net Coalition, “democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance” means democratic processes with clear guidelines for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not favour the “equal-footing multi-stakeholder model” and thus a clear departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed norms, such as happened at NetMundial. The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed “in the public interest”. While falling short of the civil society demand for characterizing the Internet as a “global commons” or “public good”, it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says that the Internet is “a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda”. We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic multi-stakeholder model President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final outcome document in the roadmap section accepts “the full involvement of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities” and is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. The outcome document has further held, “Governments have primary, legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights”. The NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the “democratic multistakeholder process” model. NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of “multistakeholderism in practice” included the seemingly open format of “selecting” the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which ultimately only works for the few? In this regard, we see the reference to “democratic multistakeholder processes” in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now need to spell out what would constitute “democratic multistakeholder processes”. This of course includes the NetMundial call for further discussions on “different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance” and its two references to “respective roles and responsibilities”. This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration of what is a “democratic multistakeholder process” where, of course, corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions regarding public policy issues. The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens they represent. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. Marco Civil – the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to bury net neutrality in the “Future Plans” section of the NetMundial outcome document. Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not validly part of it: First, while references to the “right to access, share, create and distribute information” exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is limited to what is “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. The right to share and communicate has now been circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made legal. Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet users, has now been coupled with “private policing” for enforcing Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging “cooperation among all stakeholders” in order to “address and deter illegal activity” which is in fact, well understood as coded language for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries. It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet and the digital economy. Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the “open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community” for “discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends.” Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) May 3, 2014 http://JustNetCoalition.org info at JustNetCoalition.org (1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that “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....”. (2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). (3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with the US government. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 5 04:00:42 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 10:00:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Springer vs. Google References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <007401cf66ad$de17c9b0$9a475d10$@gmail.com> <009601cf66b8$b70c0e70$25242b50$@gmail.com> <145c30ecfb8.2762.f8576d56a1fa140fdca5e8e90d63ce32@internet-ecosystem.net> <002a01cf66fd$89052ad0$9b0f8070$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, just FYI: The battle between Mr. Döpfner (Springer is, inter alia, the publisher of the German tabloid BILD Zeitung) and Mr. Schmidt (Google) in Germany is not new, it is a very old one. It goes back to 2009 when Springer tried to convince the FDP-CDU government to establish a "Leistungsschutzrecht". With this law Springer wanted to have money for the snippets Google News (and other news aggregators) do publish from the newspapers owned by Springer. With other words: A (German) one million dollar business wanted to have some money from another (American) million dollar business with the help of the government. A delicate aspect of this is, that there was - in the background - a family linkage. There were two brothers: one worked in the establishment of Springer, the other one in the Chancellory. The guy from the government has now left the governmental office and works for BMW. I have my doubts whether Springer has any idea to strengthen the democratic multistakeholder Internet Governance model and to include civil society into Internet policy development and decision making. Users/readers were not asked when the parliament discussed the "Leistungsschutzrecht". Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2014 01:54 An: michael gurstein Cc: '1Net List' Betreff: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google Yes, the copyright interests and other threatened old media have been at war with Google for some time. Odd to see Mr. Gurstein siding with the MPAA and the book publishers, but when you have no consistent principles I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend, etc. From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Yes, that well known left wing conspiracy hack err the head of Axel Springer Corp (the largest publishing group in Europe) effectively calling for global regulation of Google (the monopoly provider of an increasing range of -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon May 5 04:33:12 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 10:33:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Springer vs. Google In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <007401cf66ad$de17c9b0$9a475d10$@gmail.com> <009601cf66b8$b70c0e70$25242b50$@gmail.com> <145c30ecfb8.2762.f8576d56a1fa140fdca5e8e90d63ce32@internet-ecosystem.net> <002a01cf66fd$89052ad0$9b0f8070$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <72272630-AFD8-4C2A-9564-12EED70E4F16@theglobaljournal.net> Dear Wolfgang, We should all regret that the media didn't come together against Google on this. The battle is not between Döpfner and Schmidt: it is between the media at large and Google. All over Europe, and beyond, the same battle is raging. It is unseen in History that one single media uses other media contents for its own benefit, and is hardly sharing a tiny part, for those media strong enough to complain and sometimes obtain a bit more. Google considers that it 'gives back' by linking the aggregated content to their original source. In many case this bring petty money. With a model that would find a balance with 60% advertising and 40% content revenues, Google has now taken by 15 to 30% of these advertising revenues away from the media. And we know that Google model is even not secure, as the per-click is losing its value everyday. Over the last quarter, Google click value has lost 9%, meaning that its model might not be sustainable. Concentration is killing media, diversity of media, diversity of opinion, reduction of debate within our societies. Concentration, and dominatio are bad to democracy, endangering the fragile balance any society is trying to keep aloft. In its annual financial report, Google shows in a very un-detailed fashion, a gross revenue that do not count what it gives back to other media. That is the normal standard accounting. Any revenue generated by a media, and given back as a commission to partners, should be included in its books. There is some obvious reason for Google to make it so. It means: - Google makes much more revenues than what it declares (getting it closer to 100 B USD - Still what is paid back by Google to each media does not match the economical requirement to be even for these media. Even with that pocket money the majority of media are either starving or dying. Great job. And still no public regulation, as we have had for the press, the radio or television. And it is not just the story of big fishes eating small fishes. I am happy with Google making profits. One cannot be happy with the desertification of media, and should look into all of that money that Google pushes around to secure its position all over the planet. Journalists might be to blame for losing some of their wit to explore, investigate the political and economical powers, becoming servants to the dominants. Still, the economical reading is clear. Google is destroying many jobs in that field. Dominatio is not welcome to preserve social balance and justice. Jean-Christophe Le 5 mai 2014 à 10:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > Hi, > > just FYI: The battle between Mr. Döpfner (Springer is, inter alia, the publisher of the German tabloid BILD Zeitung) and Mr. Schmidt (Google) in Germany is not new, it is a very old one. It goes back to 2009 when Springer tried to convince the FDP-CDU government to establish a "Leistungsschutzrecht". With this law Springer wanted to have money for the snippets Google News (and other news aggregators) do publish from the newspapers owned by Springer. With other words: A (German) one million dollar business wanted to have some money from another (American) million dollar business with the help of the government. A delicate aspect of this is, that there was - in the background - a family linkage. There were two brothers: one worked in the establishment of Springer, the other one in the Chancellory. The guy from the government has now left the governmental office and works for BMW. > > I have my doubts whether Springer has any idea to strengthen the democratic multistakeholder Internet Governance model and to include civil society into Internet policy development and decision making. Users/readers were not asked when the parliament discussed the "Leistungsschutzrecht". > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller > Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2014 01:54 > An: michael gurstein > Cc: '1Net List' > Betreff: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google > > > > Yes, the copyright interests and other threatened old media have been at war with Google for some time. Odd to see Mr. Gurstein siding with the MPAA and the book publishers, but when you have no consistent principles I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend, etc. > > > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Yes, that well known left wing conspiracy hack err the head of Axel Springer Corp (the largest publishing group in Europe) effectively calling for global regulation of Google (the monopoly provider of an increasing range of > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon May 5 05:29:46 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial In-Reply-To: <20140505094948.72e5d2c7@quill> References: <20140505094948.72e5d2c7@quill> Message-ID: Brillant! jfc At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome >Document: > >http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document > >Greetings, >Norbert >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > >The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document > >The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of >NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain >important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on >managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the >document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the >inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on >intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the >omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on >net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all >about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with >new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed >by different actors in the future. > >For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for >Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines >for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and >responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous >interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not >favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear >departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was >proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. > >While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is >worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the >meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was >made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision >making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder >model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big >business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we >will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose >the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. > >We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at >NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the >red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful >parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. >In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful >interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the >point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed >norms, such as happened at NetMundial. > >The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, >particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed >"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society >demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commons” or "public >good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says >that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its >governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society >agenda". > >We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic >multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly >foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of >networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour >the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and >more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes >must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and >private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. > >The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic >multi-stakeholder model > >President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue >between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final >outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement >of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and >is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. >The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal >and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The >NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, >creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision >making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing >these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the >"democratic multistakeholder process" model. > >NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising >multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of >"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of >"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda >setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for >contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions >and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the >initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong >contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these >could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the >delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an >appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or >alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how >multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the >fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were >flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes >themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and >that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily >dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be >viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which >ultimately only works for the few? > >In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder >processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now >need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder >processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further >discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in >Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and >responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration >of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course, >corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions >regarding public policy issues. > >The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if >public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through >democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from >citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or >institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens >they represent. > >Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and >Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights >(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct >of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or >through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes >should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such >decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations >rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in >violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. > >Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory > >We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding >certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: >http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. > >Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible >with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and >proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down >with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly >resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we >note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have >primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human >rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and >globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global >system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments >must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own >citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their >jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. > >In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and >cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for >addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. > >Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. >Marco Civil ­ the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European >parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. >Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to >bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial >outcome document. > >Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to >copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the >text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business >representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that >new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly >there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have >been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not >validly part of it: > >First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and >distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone >basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is >limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators >as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been >circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to >be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators >to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international >copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative >document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the >existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our >belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must >be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that >non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made >legal. > >Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, >having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet >users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing >Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging >"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter >illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language >for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other >intermediaries. > >It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to >the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the >OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. > >Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which >President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: >i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to >respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital >economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and >re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within >countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the >outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic >justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet >and the digital economy. > >Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition >is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the >transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US >government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it >sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. >While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government >supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way >in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact >that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the >transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this >transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in >a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that >ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the >"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending >beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for >guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions >after the US Government role ends.” > > > >Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) > >May 3, 2014 > >http://JustNetCoalition.org > >info at JustNetCoalition.org > > >(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "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....". > >(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in >particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root >zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). > >(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is >currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with >the US government. > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon May 5 05:43:10 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:43:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Springer vs. Google In-Reply-To: <72272630-AFD8-4C2A-9564-12EED70E4F16@theglobaljournal.net> References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <007401cf66ad$de17c9b0$9a475d10$@gmail.com> <009601cf66b8$b70c0e70$25242b50$@gmail.com> <145c30ecfb8.2762.f8576d56a1fa140fdca5e8e90d63ce32@internet-ecosystem.net> <002a01cf66fd$89052ad0$9b0f8070$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <72272630-AFD8-4C2A-9564-12EED70E4F16@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <722445313.9503.1399282990326.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> Dear Jean-Christophe and Wolfgang   IMHO Jean-Christophe is right : the Döpfner-Schmidt duell isn't a "german inner history" : it's a worldwide issue where liberty of opinion -not only in legacy media- is on stake.   To JC's arguments I'd add a very strong one : Google is the champion in tax evesion from the countries who it earns its huge profits to Tax Heavens. This un/anti-social and un/anti-citizen beheaviour disqualifies Google and its ICT business similars to be part of a democratic multistakeholder process, wherever it would take place : NetMundial+ , IGF or other. Best   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/05/14 10:34 > De : "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > Copie à : "Milton L Mueller" , "michael gurstein" , "1Net List" > Objet : Re: [governance] Springer vs. Google > > Dear Wolfgang, > We should all regret that the media didn't come together against Google on this.  > The battle is not between Döpfner and Schmidt: it is between the media at large and Google. All over Europe, and beyond, the same battle is raging. It is unseen in History that one single media uses other media contents for its own benefit, and is hardly sharing a tiny part, for those media strong enough to complain and sometimes obtain a bit more. Google considers that it 'gives back' by linking the aggregated content to their original source. In many case this bring petty money. With a model that would find a balance with 60% advertising and 40% content revenues, Google has now taken by 15 to 30% of these advertising revenues away from the media. And we know that Google model is even not secure, as the per-click is losing its value everyday. Over the last quarter, Google click value has lost 9%, meaning that its model might not be sustainable.  > Concentration is killing media, diversity of media, diversity of opinion, reduction of debate within our societies. Concentration, and dominatio are bad to democracy, endangering the fragile balance any society is trying to keep aloft.  > In its annual financial report, Google shows in a very un-detailed fashion, a gross revenue that do not count what it gives back to other media. That is the normal standard accounting. Any revenue generated by a media, and given back as a commission to partners, should be included in its books. There is some obvious reason for Google to make it so. >  It means: - Google makes much more revenues than what it declares (getting it closer to 100 B USD - Still what is paid back by Google to each media does not match the economical requirement to be even for these media. Even with that pocket money the majority of media are either starving or dying. Great job. And still no public regulation, as we have had for the press, the radio or television. And it is not just the story of big fishes eating small fishes. > I am happy with Google making profits. One cannot be happy with the desertification of media, and should look into all of that money that Google pushes around to secure its position all over the planet.  > Journalists might be to blame for losing some of their wit to explore, investigate the political and economical powers, becoming servants to the dominants. Still, the economical reading is clear. Google is destroying many jobs in that field.  > Dominatio is not welcome to preserve social balance and justice. > Jean-Christophe > > > Le 5 mai 2014 à 10:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : Hi, > > just FYI: The  battle between Mr. Döpfner (Springer is, inter alia, the publisher of the German tabloid BILD Zeitung) and Mr. Schmidt (Google) in Germany is not new, it is a very old one. It goes back to 2009 when Springer tried to convince the FDP-CDU government to establish a "Leistungsschutzrecht". With this law Springer wanted to have money for the snippets Google News (and other news aggregators) do publish from the newspapers owned by Springer.  With other words: A (German) one million dollar business wanted to have some money from another (American) million dollar business with the help of the government.  A delicate aspect of this is, that there was - in the background - a family linkage. There were two brothers: one worked in the establishment of Springer, the other one in the Chancellory. The guy from the government has now left the governmental office and works for BMW. > > I have my doubts whether Springer has any idea to strengthen the democratic multistakeholder Internet Governance model and to include civil society into Internet policy development and decision making. Users/readers were not asked when the parliament discussed the "Leistungsschutzrecht". > > Wolfgang    > > ________________________________ > > Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller > Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2014 01:54 > An: michael gurstein > Cc: '1Net List' > Betreff: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google > > > > Yes, the copyright interests and other threatened old media have been at war with Google for some time. Odd to see Mr. Gurstein siding with the MPAA and the book publishers, but when you have no consistent principles I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend, etc. > > > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Yes, that well known left wing conspiracy hack err the head of Axel Springer Corp (the largest publishing group in Europe) effectively calling for global regulation of Google (the monopoly provider of an increasing range of > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon May 5 05:50:36 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:50:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: <20140505094948.72e5d2c7@quill> Message-ID: <135506013.9851.1399283436981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> I agree ! And add : this response is also interpellating all CS people. Thanks JCN and Norberrt.   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/05/14 11:31 > De : "JFC Morfin" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" , "IGC" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial > > Brillant! > jfc > > At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome > >Document: > > > >http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > > > >The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document > > > >The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of > >NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain > >important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on > >managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the > >document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the > >inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on > >intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the > >omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on > >net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all > >about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with > >new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed > >by different actors in the future. > > > >For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for > >Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines > >for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and > >responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous > >interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not > >favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear > >departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was > >proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. > > > >While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is > >worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the > >meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was > >made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision > >making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder > >model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big > >business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we > >will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose > >the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. > > > >We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at > >NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the > >red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful > >parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. > >In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful > >interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the > >point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed > >norms, such as happened at NetMundial. > > > >The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, > >particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed > >"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society > >demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commons” or "public > >good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says > >that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its > >governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society > >agenda". > > > >We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic > >multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly > >foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of > >networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour > >the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and > >more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes > >must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and > >private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. > > > >The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic > >multi-stakeholder model > > > >President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue > >between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final > >outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement > >of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and > >is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. > >The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal > >and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The > >NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, > >creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision > >making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing > >these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the > >"democratic multistakeholder process" model. > > > >NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising > >multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of > >"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of > >"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda > >setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for > >contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions > >and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the > >initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong > >contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these > >could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the > >delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an > >appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or > >alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how > >multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the > >fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were > >flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes > >themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and > >that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily > >dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be > >viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which > >ultimately only works for the few? > > > >In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder > >processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now > >need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder > >processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further > >discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in > >Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and > >responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration > >of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course, > >corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions > >regarding public policy issues. > > > >The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if > >public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through > >democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from > >citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or > >institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens > >they represent. > > > >Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and > >Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > >(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct > >of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or > >through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes > >should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such > >decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations > >rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in > >violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. > > > >Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory > > > >We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding > >certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: > >http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. > > > >Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible > >with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and > >proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down > >with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly > >resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we > >note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have > >primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human > >rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and > >globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global > >system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments > >must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own > >citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their > >jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. > > > >In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and > >cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for > >addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. > > > >Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. > >Marco Civil ­ the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European > >parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. > >Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to > >bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial > >outcome document. > > > >Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to > >copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the > >text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business > >representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that > >new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly > >there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have > >been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not > >validly part of it: > > > >First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and > >distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone > >basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is > >limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators > >as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been > >circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to > >be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators > >to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international > >copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative > >document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the > >existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our > >belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must > >be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that > >non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made > >legal. > > > >Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, > >having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet > >users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing > >Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging > >"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter > >illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language > >for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other > >intermediaries. > > > >It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to > >the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the > >OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. > > > >Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which > >President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: > >i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to > >respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital > >economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and > >re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within > >countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the > >outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic > >justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet > >and the digital economy. > > > >Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition > >is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the > >transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US > >government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it > >sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. > >While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government > >supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way > >in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact > >that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the > >transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this > >transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in > >a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that > >ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the > >"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending > >beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for > >guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions > >after the US Government role ends.” > > > > > > > >Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) > > > >May 3, 2014 > > > >http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > >info at JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > >(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "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....". > > > >(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in > >particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root > >zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). > > > >(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is > >currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with > >the US government. > > > > > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon May 5 06:16:10 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:16:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial In-Reply-To: <135506013.9851.1399283436981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> References: <20140505094948.72e5d2c7@quill> <135506013.9851.1399283436981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> Message-ID: <32B466E8-A1C8-4A55-B846-09B7F788FAA8@theglobaljournal.net> Dear Jean-Louis, I am a proud signatory of the Delhi Declaration, and a humble co-founder of the JNC - but I assume you meant "thanks JNC and Norbert" and not JCN - a though amusing little typo! JCN Le 5 mai 2014 à 11:50, Jean-Louis FULLSACK a écrit : > I agree ! And add : this response is also interpellating all CS people. Thanks JCN and Norberrt. > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 05/05/14 11:31 > > De : "JFC Morfin" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" , "IGC" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial > > > > Brillant! > > jfc > > > > At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > >Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome > > >Document: > > > > > >http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document > > > > > >Greetings, > > >Norbert > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > > > > > > >The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document > > > > > >The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of > > >NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain > > >important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on > > >managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the > > >document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the > > >inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on > > >intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the > > >omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on > > >net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all > > >about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with > > >new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed > > >by different actors in the future. > > > > > >For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for > > >Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines > > >for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and > > >responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous > > >interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not > > >favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear > > >departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was > > >proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. > > > > > >While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is > > >worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the > > >meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was > > >made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision > > >making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder > > >model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big > > >business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we > > >will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose > > >the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. > > > > > >We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at > > >NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the > > >red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful > > >parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. > > >In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful > > >interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the > > >point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed > > >norms, such as happened at NetMundial. > > > > > >The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, > > >particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed > > >"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society > > >demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commons” or "public > > >good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says > > >that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its > > >governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society > > >agenda". > > > > > >We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic > > >multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly > > >foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of > > >networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour > > >the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and > > >more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes > > >must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and > > >private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. > > > > > >The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic > > >multi-stakeholder model > > > > > >President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue > > >between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final > > >outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement > > >of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and > > >is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. > > >The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal > > >and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The > > >NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, > > >creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision > > >making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing > > >these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the > > >"democratic multistakeholder process" model. > > > > > >NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising > > >multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of > > >"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of > > >"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda > > >setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for > > >contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions > > >and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the > > >initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong > > >contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these > > >could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the > > >delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an > > >appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or > > >alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how > > >multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the > > >fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were > > >flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes > > >themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and > > >that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily > > >dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be > > >viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which > > >ultimately only works for the few? > > > > > >In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder > > >processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now > > >need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder > > >processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further > > >discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in > > >Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and > > >responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration > > >of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course, > > >corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions > > >regarding public policy issues. > > > > > >The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if > > >public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through > > >democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from > > >citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or > > >institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens > > >they represent. > > > > > >Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and > > >Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > > >(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct > > >of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or > > >through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes > > >should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such > > >decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations > > >rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in > > >violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. > > > > > >Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory > > > > > >We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding > > >certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: > > >http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. > > > > > >Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible > > >with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and > > >proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down > > >with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly > > >resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we > > >note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have > > >primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human > > >rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and > > >globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global > > >system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments > > >must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own > > >citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their > > >jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. > > > > > >In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and > > >cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for > > >addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. > > > > > >Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. > > >Marco Civil ­ the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European > > >parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. > > >Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to > > >bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial > > >outcome document. > > > > > >Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to > > >copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the > > >text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business > > >representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that > > >new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly > > >there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have > > >been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not > > >validly part of it: > > > > > >First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and > > >distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone > > >basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is > > >limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators > > >as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been > > >circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to > > >be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators > > >to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international > > >copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative > > >document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the > > >existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our > > >belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must > > >be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that > > >non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made > > >legal. > > > > > >Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, > > >having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet > > >users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing > > >Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging > > >"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter > > >illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language > > >for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other > > >intermediaries. > > > > > >It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to > > >the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the > > >OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. > > > > > >Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which > > >President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: > > >i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to > > >respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital > > >economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and > > >re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within > > >countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the > > >outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic > > >justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet > > >and the digital economy. > > > > > >Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition > > >is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the > > >transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US > > >government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it > > >sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. > > >While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government > > >supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way > > >in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact > > >that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the > > >transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this > > >transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in > > >a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that > > >ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the > > >"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending > > >beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for > > >guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions > > >after the US Government role ends.” > > > > > > > > > > > >Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) > > > > > >May 3, 2014 > > > > > >http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > >info at JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > >(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "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....". > > > > > >(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in > > >particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root > > >zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). > > > > > >(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is > > >currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with > > >the US government. > > > > > > > > > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon May 5 06:36:43 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:36:43 +0200 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Springer vs. Google In-Reply-To: References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <007401cf66ad$de17c9b0$9a475d10$@gmail.com> <009601cf66b8$b70c0e70$25242b50$@gmail.com> <145c30ecfb8.2762.f8576d56a1fa140fdca5e8e90d63ce32@internet-ecosystem.net> <002a01cf66fd$89052ad0$9b0f8070$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <72272630-AFD8-4C2A-9564-12EED70E4F16@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Hi Seun, I will take time to revert to other points/comments of your message. For now, let me address your request for a reference for Google. Best Jean-Christophe Here the reference to the report - FT has a paywall, so I screen-captured the quote. Google's average prices for its ads slipped a little more than expected down 9 percent. The constant expansion of the Internet 'clickers' reduced constantly what you have to pay for advertising on the Net by using the click count. (per 1'000, the kilo click) - One issue is that the new audience is not as bankable (i.e. with high revenue) making the additional audience less valuable per click. Most of the high-end audience (from developed countries) is already 'in' - The previous model (classic media) had a limited and more or less stable audience/market keeping price per 1'000 readers to a relatively constant value. Today you count clicks, not readers. - The media buyers are buying media space for ads more or less as per the kilo, having little if no interest at least in the quality or relevance of the content. This quantitative approach will end. Have you ever sold a media space to any of these young kiddos telling you "I have 2'000 bucks for your audience. Take it or I'll give these 2'000 bucks to another media." They have no idea of the engagement of the audience. It is a become a vulgar market. - Google is a strong driver of the cost for the kilo click. As an over dominant ad seller, if its cost per kilo goes down, all the digital advertising industry goes down. Google shares dip 5% as earnings disappoint Google failed to bring any respite to Wall Street's tech stock sell-off on Wednesday, as it reported disappointing first-quarter earnings... http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba8cc860-c58f-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz30pqUVpIe Google creates panic for fund managers Facebook's push into financial services has sparked fears among asset managers that major technology groups have the potential to destroy... Google invests in former NSA analysts' start-up Google's venture capital arm and Silicon Valley's Kleiner Perkins have invested in a start-up run by two former National Security Agency... Le 5 mai 2014 à 11:07, Seun Ojedeji a écrit : > Hello Jean, > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > We should all regret that the media didn't come together against Google on this. > > The battle is not between Döpfner and Schmidt: it is between the media at large and Google. All over Europe, and beyond, the same battle is raging. It is unseen in History that one single media uses other media contents for its own benefit, and is hardly sharing a tiny part, for those media strong enough to complain and sometimes obtain a bit more. Google considers that it 'gives back' by linking the aggregated content to their original source. In many case this bring petty money. With a model that would find a balance with 60% advertising and 40% content revenues, Google has now taken by 15 to 30% of these advertising revenues away from the media. And we know that Google model is even not secure, as the per-click is losing its value everyday. Over the last quarter, Google click value has lost 9%, meaning that its model might not be sustainable. > > Any reference to this report and to whom was the 9% lost to? > > Concentration is killing media, diversity of media, diversity of opinion, reduction of debate within our societies. Concentration, and dominatio are bad to democracy, endangering the fragile balance any society is trying to keep aloft. > > Okay > > In its annual financial report, Google shows in a very un-detailed fashion, a gross revenue that do not count what it gives back to other media. That is the normal standard accounting. Any revenue generated by a media, and given back as a commission to partners, should be included in its books. There is some obvious reason for Google to make it so. > > It means: > - Google makes much more revenues than what it declares (getting it closer to 100 B USD > > Okay which is not a bad thing for a focused organisation > > - Still what is paid back by Google to each media does not match the economical requirement to be even for these media. Even with that pocket money the majority of media are either starving or dying. Great job. And still no public regulation, as we have had for the press, the radio or television. And it is not just the story of big fishes eating small fishes. > > Okay i presume you are saying this from experience. My question though is, how exactly is google making those folks lose their job? isn't it more like a win-win situation in that if i need an information, i "google it" and google directs me to a media page where i remain to view all necessary information. So google wins by helping me know they are available to guide me to the media location and the media wins by me getting to their post. > > I am happy with Google making profits. One cannot be happy with the desertification of media, and should look into all of that money that Google pushes around to secure its position all over the planet. > > Journalists might be to blame for losing some of their wit to explore, investigate the political and economical powers, becoming servants to the dominants. Still, the economical reading is clear. Google is destroying many jobs in that field. > > Indeed, i have a short story; Once upon a time the current richest man in Africa (as announced by forbes) did something that made some loose their job - One of his company that sells rice got an hint that another foreign company is springing up to compete with their product. He then slashed the market price of his rice by almost half so the new comer looses its competitive ability and in no time packed up! Would you say that Dangote was being unfair by doing that OR that he was being smart by loosing some money to gain many more. > Google spends some money across the world and just like any other business conscious organisation, they are in to make profit. There is just no room for democracy in that! > > Kind Regards > > Dominatio is not welcome to preserve social balance and justice. > > Jean-Christophe > > > > Le 5 mai 2014 à 10:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> just FYI: The battle between Mr. Döpfner (Springer is, inter alia, the publisher of the German tabloid BILD Zeitung) and Mr. Schmidt (Google) in Germany is not new, it is a very old one. It goes back to 2009 when Springer tried to convince the FDP-CDU government to establish a "Leistungsschutzrecht". With this law Springer wanted to have money for the snippets Google News (and other news aggregators) do publish from the newspapers owned by Springer. With other words: A (German) one million dollar business wanted to have some money from another (American) million dollar business with the help of the government. A delicate aspect of this is, that there was - in the background - a family linkage. There were two brothers: one worked in the establishment of Springer, the other one in the Chancellory. The guy from the government has now left the governmental office and works for BMW. >> >> I have my doubts whether Springer has any idea to strengthen the democratic multistakeholder Internet Governance model and to include civil society into Internet policy development and decision making. Users/readers were not asked when the parliament discussed the "Leistungsschutzrecht". >> >> Wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller >> Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2014 01:54 >> An: michael gurstein >> Cc: '1Net List' >> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google >> >> >> >> Yes, the copyright interests and other threatened old media have been at war with Google for some time. Odd to see Mr. Gurstein siding with the MPAA and the book publishers, but when you have no consistent principles I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend, etc. >> >> >> >> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein >> Yes, that well known left wing conspiracy hack err the head of Axel Springer Corp (the largest publishing group in Europe) effectively calling for global regulation of Google (the monopoly provider of an increasing range of >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-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 > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Capture d'?cran 2014-05-05 12.20.42.png Type: image/png Size: 43262 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon May 5 06:37:58 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:37:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Springer vs. Google In-Reply-To: <722445313.9503.1399282990326.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <007401cf66ad$de17c9b0$9a475d10$@gmail.com> <009601cf66b8$b70c0e70$25242b50$@gmail.com> <145c30ecfb8.2762.f8576d56a1fa140fdca5e8e90d63ce32@internet-ecosystem.net> <002a01cf66fd$89052ad0$9b0f8070$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <72272630-AFD8-4C2A-9564-12EED70E4F16@theglobaljournal.net> <722445313.9503.1399282990326.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> Message-ID: <87FC8360-A1A0-4451-8569-D7BC83E122A6@theglobaljournal.net> and now, in the FT today: Australia targets tax avoidance by multinational tech groups Australia has begun sharing intelligence with five countries to help target tax avoidance by multinational technology companies, which it... Le 5 mai 2014 à 11:43, Jean-Louis FULLSACK a écrit : > Dear Jean-Christophe and Wolfgang > > > IMHO Jean-Christophe is right : the Döpfner-Schmidt duell isn't a "german inner history" : it's a worldwide issue where liberty of opinion -not only in legacy media- is on stake. > > > To JC's arguments I'd add a very strong one : Google is the champion in tax evesion from the countries who it earns its huge profits to Tax Heavens. This un/anti-social and un/anti-citizen beheaviour disqualifies Google and its ICT business similars to be part of a democratic multistakeholder process, wherever it would take place : NetMundial+ , IGF or other. > > Best > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 05/05/14 10:34 > > De : "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > Copie à : "Milton L Mueller" , "michael gurstein" , "1Net List" > > Objet : Re: [governance] Springer vs. Google > > > > > Dear Wolfgang, > > > > We should all regret that the media didn't come together against Google on this. > > > > The battle is not between Döpfner and Schmidt: it is between the media at large and Google. All over Europe, and beyond, the same battle is raging. It is unseen in History that one single media uses other media contents for its own benefit, and is hardly sharing a tiny part, for those media strong enough to complain and sometimes obtain a bit more. Google considers that it 'gives back' by linking the aggregated content to their original source. In many case this bring petty money. With a model that would find a balance with 60% advertising and 40% content revenues, Google has now taken by 15 to 30% of these advertising revenues away from the media. And we know that Google model is even not secure, as the per-click is losing its value everyday. Over the last quarter, Google click value has lost 9%, meaning that its model might not be sustainable. > > > > Concentration is killing media, diversity of media, diversity of opinion, reduction of debate within our societies. Concentration, and dominatio are bad to democracy, endangering the fragile balance any society is trying to keep aloft. > > > > In its annual financial report, Google shows in a very un-detailed fashion, a gross revenue that do not count what it gives back to other media. That is the normal standard accounting. Any revenue generated by a media, and given back as a commission to partners, should be included in its books. There is some obvious reason for Google to make it so. > > > > It means: > - Google makes much more revenues than what it declares (getting it closer to 100 B USD > - Still what is paid back by Google to each media does not match the economical requirement to be even for these media. Even with that pocket money the majority of media are either starving or dying. Great job. And still no public regulation, as we have had for the press, the radio or television. And it is not just the story of big fishes eating small fishes. > > > > I am happy with Google making profits. One cannot be happy with the desertification of media, and should look into all of that money that Google pushes around to secure its position all over the planet. > > > > Journalists might be to blame for losing some of their wit to explore, investigate the political and economical powers, becoming servants to the dominants. Still, the economical reading is clear. Google is destroying many jobs in that field. > > > > Dominatio is not welcome to preserve social balance and justice. > > > > Jean-Christophe > > > > > > > > > > Le 5 mai 2014 à 10:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > just FYI: The battle between Mr. Döpfner (Springer is, inter alia, the publisher of the German tabloid BILD Zeitung) and Mr. Schmidt (Google) in Germany is not new, it is a very old one. It goes back to 2009 when Springer tried to convince the FDP-CDU government to establish a "Leistungsschutzrecht". With this law Springer wanted to have money for the snippets Google News (and other news aggregators) do publish from the newspapers owned by Springer. With other words: A (German) one million dollar business wanted to have some money from another (American) million dollar business with the help of the government. A delicate aspect of this is, that there was - in the background - a family linkage. There were two brothers: one worked in the establishment of Springer, the other one in the Chancellory. The guy from the government has now left the governmental office and works for BMW. > > > > I have my doubts whether Springer has any idea to strengthen the democratic multistakeholder Internet Governance model and to include civil society into Internet policy development and decision making. Users/readers were not asked when the parliament discussed the "Leistungsschutzrecht". > > > > Wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller > > Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2014 01:54 > > An: michael gurstein > > Cc: '1Net List' > > Betreff: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google > > > > > > > > Yes, the copyright interests and other threatened old media have been at war with Google for some time. Odd to see Mr. Gurstein siding with the MPAA and the book publishers, but when you have no consistent principles I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend, etc. > > > > > > > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > > Yes, that well known left wing conspiracy hack err the head of Axel Springer Corp (the largest publishing group in Europe) effectively calling for global regulation of Google (the monopoly provider of an increasing range of > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon May 5 07:28:13 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 13:28:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial In-Reply-To: <32B466E8-A1C8-4A55-B846-09B7F788FAA8@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20140505094948.72e5d2c7@quill> <135506013.9851.1399283436981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <32B466E8-A1C8-4A55-B846-09B7F788FAA8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <1662995127.12611.1399289293296.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> Of course, I did ! My apologies ...   JLF > Message du 05/05/14 12:18 > De : "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : "JFC Morfin" , "Norbert Bollow" > Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial > > Dear Jean-Louis,   I am a proud signatory of the Delhi Declaration, and a humble co-founder of the JNC - but I assume you meant "thanks JNC and Norbert" and not JCN - a though amusing little typo! > JCN > > Le 5 mai 2014 à 11:50, Jean-Louis FULLSACK a écrit : > I agree ! And add : this response is also interpellating all CS people. Thanks JCN and Norberrt.   > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 05/05/14 11:31 > > De : "JFC Morfin" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" , "IGC" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial > > > > Brillant! > > jfc > > > > At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > >Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome > > >Document: > > > > > >http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document > > > > > >Greetings, > > >Norbert > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > > > > > > >The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document > > > > > >The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of > > >NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain > > >important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on > > >managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the > > >document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the > > >inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on > > >intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the > > >omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on > > >net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all > > >about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with > > >new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed > > >by different actors in the future. > > > > > >For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for > > >Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines > > >for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and > > >responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous > > >interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not > > >favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear > > >departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was > > >proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. > > > > > >While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is > > >worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the > > >meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was > > >made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision > > >making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder > > >model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big > > >business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we > > >will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose > > >the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. > > > > > >We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at > > >NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the > > >red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful > > >parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. > > >In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful > > >interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the > > >point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed > > >norms, such as happened at NetMundial. > > > > > >The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, > > >particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed > > >"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society > > >demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commons” or "public > > >good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says > > >that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its > > >governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society > > >agenda". > > > > > >We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic > > >multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly > > >foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of > > >networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour > > >the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and > > >more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes > > >must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and > > >private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. > > > > > >The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic > > >multi-stakeholder model > > > > > >President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue > > >between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final > > >outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement > > >of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and > > >is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. > > >The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal > > >and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The > > >NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, > > >creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision > > >making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing > > >these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the > > >"democratic multistakeholder process" model. > > > > > >NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising > > >multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of > > >"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of > > >"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda > > >setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for > > >contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions > > >and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the > > >initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong > > >contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these > > >could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the > > >delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an > > >appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or > > >alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how > > >multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the > > >fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were > > >flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes > > >themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and > > >that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily > > >dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be > > >viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which > > >ultimately only works for the few? > > > > > >In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder > > >processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now > > >need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder > > >processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further > > >discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in > > >Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and > > >responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration > > >of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course, > > >corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions > > >regarding public policy issues. > > > > > >The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if > > >public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through > > >democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from > > >citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or > > >institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens > > >they represent. > > > > > >Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and > > >Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > > >(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct > > >of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or > > >through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes > > >should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such > > >decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations > > >rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in > > >violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. > > > > > >Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory > > > > > >We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding > > >certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: > > >http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. > > > > > >Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible > > >with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and > > >proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down > > >with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly > > >resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we > > >note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have > > >primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human > > >rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and > > >globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global > > >system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments > > >must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own > > >citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their > > >jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. > > > > > >In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and > > >cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for > > >addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. > > > > > >Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. > > >Marco Civil ­ the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European > > >parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. > > >Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to > > >bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial > > >outcome document. > > > > > >Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to > > >copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the > > >text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business > > >representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that > > >new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly > > >there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have > > >been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not > > >validly part of it: > > > > > >First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and > > >distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone > > >basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is > > >limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators > > >as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been > > >circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to > > >be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators > > >to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international > > >copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative > > >document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the > > >existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our > > >belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must > > >be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that > > >non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made > > >legal. > > > > > >Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, > > >having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet > > >users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing > > >Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging > > >"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter > > >illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language > > >for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other > > >intermediaries. > > > > > >It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to > > >the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the > > >OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. > > > > > >Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which > > >President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: > > >i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to > > >respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital > > >economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and > > >re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within > > >countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the > > >outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic > > >justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet > > >and the digital economy. > > > > > >Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition > > >is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the > > >transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US > > >government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it > > >sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. > > >While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government > > >supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way > > >in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact > > >that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the > > >transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this > > >transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in > > >a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that > > >ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the > > >"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending > > >beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for > > >guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions > > >after the US Government role ends.” > > > > > > > > > > > >Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) > > > > > >May 3, 2014 > > > > > >http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > >info at JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > >(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "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....". > > > > > >(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in > > >particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root > > >zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). > > > > > >(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is > > >currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with > > >the US government. > > > > > > > > > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 5 20:17:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 20:17:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] PAPER - An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate Message-ID: Tipping the Scale: An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate Internet Governance Papers No. 7 SERIES: INTERNET GOVERNANCE BY: TIM MAURER AND ROBERT MORGUS PUBLISHED: MAY 5, 2014 DOWNLOAD PDF ------------------------------ In December 2012, numerous news outlets reported on the debate over Internet governance that took place at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. It was the first time in nearly a decade that the topic attracted major international media attention. A key aspect of the post-WCIT discussion has centred on the role of “swing states” in this global debate. So far, most of this work has been based on predefined groups of countries or focused on countries based on anecdotal evidence of a vibrant tech community or existing relationships. The study discussed in this paper applied a more systematic approach. The research revealed some interesting patterns among certain groups of states. A core group of potential swing states — a total of 30 countries — are identified based on their voting behaviour at the WCIT, their various memberships and a range of relevant indicators. This list offers a road map for future in-depth studies. Ideally, it will also serve as a resource for practitioners and academics alike for comparison with current efforts and for future strategic planning that focuses on engaging other actors internationally. -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yesunny at knou.ac.kr Tue May 6 00:38:21 2014 From: yesunny at knou.ac.kr (Young-eum Lee) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:38:21 +0900 (KST) Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTDworking group on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <11815376.1399351101703.JavaMail.root@mail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 6 04:26:09 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 10:26:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] "democratic multistakeholderism" (was Re: Roles and Responsibilities...) In-Reply-To: <11815376.1399351101703.JavaMail.root@mail> References: <11815376.1399351101703.JavaMail.root@mail> Message-ID: <20140506102609.17864714@quill> (-Cc BestBits list, since IMO there is no need to burden lots of people with two copies of this discussion) Young-eum Lee wrote: > There are varying degrees of how "authoritarian" a country can be. > And there are countries that are categorized as having "noticeable > problems" in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index (by Reporters without > Borders) that do pay attention to global standards. [..] > There are many 'swing' states that would definitely be influenced by > a global definition of internet governance, and many of those would > use the argument for placing more weight on the 'role of governments' > to the detriment of democracy. In this regard, I support using the > term "democratic multistakeholderism" and if we are going to include > 'respective roles,' we should qualify it by stating that different > stakeholders have 'different but equally important roles.' This would > acknowledge the policy making roles of governments, but would make it > clear that other stakeholders have equally important roles. Freedom of communication (which I understand as including press freedom) is a human right that is endangered when the executive branch of government is overly powerful, but which will not be adversely affected when the ability of the state to make effective public policy decisions is weakened. An analysis which is based primarily or only on this aspect is therefore not going to tell us what the point is where the ability of democratic state-based processes to make public policy decisions would be weakened too much. Hence we should not look through this lense only when trying to figure out how much and what power and influence on Internet related public policy decisions is appropriate to entrust to purely state based processes as opposed to entrusting it to multistakeholder processes. I would propose that the term "democratic multistakeholderism" should not be used as simply a buzzword, but rather we need to think carefully and precisely about what it takes for governance processes to merit the attribute "democratic". 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 6 07:55:57 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 07:55:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ITAC] FW: ITU Circular letter No. 196 E & F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Vacancy notice for a Senior Communications Officer in the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Bureau. *From:* ITUMAIL, ITU [mailto:itumail at itu.int] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:21 AM *Subject:* ITU Circular letter No. 196 E & F -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LC E.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 502733 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LC F.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 505741 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 6 07:58:05 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 07:58:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hope some of you might consider supporting this great effort. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Ginger Paque* Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 Subject: [igcbp-talk] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? To: "Igcbp08h at Googlegroups. Com" Hi everyone, Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your IG course? I do! Funding for deserving students has become very difficult to find, so we are trying new possibilities. Please read about it, and help us if you can. Donations and passing this information to others both count as helping... We have launched our first crowdfunding attempt, through the Pozible platform: http://www.pozible.com/project/180875/. You will recognise Desiree Zachariah, an IG alumnus, as the first participant speaking on the video. We are starting with a very modest goal: to raise funds for several scholarships for our summer courses. However, we hope this will eventually develop into a substantial fund which we can use in different ways to support the participation of people from small and developing states in our courses. We will explore other ways to build this fund also. The idea with crowdfunding is to collect a large number of small (or medium-sized) donations. To do this, we need to reach as wide as possible an audience with the invitation to contribute and to share. We’ll be announcing this via our various channels (DiploNews, alumni, FB, Twitter, etc). In case you have ideas for spreading it more widely, please let us know your suggestions. And if you know anyone who might like to contribute with a small or even not-so-small donation, please invite them to do so! We have also established a page on our website to support this fund: http://www.diplomacy.edu/aboutus/support/fund In case of any suggestions or ideas, please let us know. Best wishes, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** * -- -- Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to the whole group! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IGCBP Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IGCBP Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue May 6 08:53:23 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:23:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a good idea and a good effort.. Hope it receives ample publicity and attracts a generous 'crowd' of Donors. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I hope some of you might consider supporting this great effort. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Ginger Paque* > Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 > Subject: [igcbp-talk] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? > To: "Igcbp08h at Googlegroups. Com" > > > Hi everyone, > > Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your > IG course? I do! Funding for deserving students has become very difficult > to find, so we are trying new possibilities. Please read about it, and help > us if you can. Donations and passing this information to others both count > as helping... > > We have launched our first crowdfunding attempt, through the Pozible > platform: > http://www.pozible.com/project/180875/. You will recognise Desiree > Zachariah, an IG alumnus, as the first participant speaking on the video. > > We are starting with a very modest goal: to raise funds for several > scholarships for our summer courses. However, we hope this will eventually > develop into a substantial fund which we can use in different ways to > support the participation of people from small and developing states in our > courses. We will explore other ways to build this fund also. > > The idea with crowdfunding is to collect a large number of small (or > medium-sized) donations. To do this, we need to reach as wide as possible > an audience with the invitation to contribute and to share. We’ll be > announcing this via our various channels (DiploNews, alumni, FB, Twitter, > etc). In case you have ideas for spreading it more widely, please let us > know your suggestions. And if you know anyone who might like to contribute > with a small or even not-so-small donation, please invite them to do so! > > We have also established a page on our website to support this fund: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/aboutus/support/fund > > In case of any suggestions or ideas, please let us know. > > Best wishes, > Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, > Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical > Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** > * > > -- > -- > Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to the > whole group! > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IGCBP Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IGCBP Talk" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue May 6 09:23:21 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 08:23:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** * On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for >> your IG course? I do! >> > > +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved > support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course > participants. > > Regards > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue May 6 09:39:38 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:39:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is I a great idea, is there a way to get some of the infrastructure players to promote it? I am thinking of ICANN and the registrars.... Stephanie Perrin Sent from my iPad > On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! > Cheers, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > > > >> On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your IG course? I do! >> >> +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course participants. >> >> Regards >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue May 6 10:56:06 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:56:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Stephanie, this is a great idea. Social media 'lore' suggests that the best way to connect to institutions is to connect directly to the people in them that we know. Personal connections are the essence of crowd funding, at least in our approach. This is a pilot attempt, so we are experimenting and any comments, suggestions or feedback are welcome, perhaps offlist. Please feel free to contact me at gpaque[at]gmail.com (my list address) or virginiap[at]diplomacy.edu (my Diplo email). If anyone can pass on this request, on individuals in organisations of this (or any other) kind, we would appreciate it very much. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** * On 6 May 2014 08:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > This is I a great idea, is there a way to get some of the infrastructure > players to promote it? I am thinking of ICANN and the registrars.... > Stephanie Perrin > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and > aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps > will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! > Cheers, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, > Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical > Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** > * > > > > On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for >>> your IG course? I do! >>> >> >> +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved >> support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course >> participants. >> >> Regards >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue May 6 12:15:15 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:15:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] List membership management In-Reply-To: <5368EFE4.7030705@acm.org> References: <20140504125212.GG3587@mx1.yitter.info> <5366A5D3.2050409@gmail.com> <201405050155.s451tjFn024856@userp1030.oracle.com> <5367AC86.9000709@oracle.com> <5367F0B5.9050606@gmail.com> <53683ffa.c46ab40a.3411.4cb4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <5368CEFB.6010004@oracle.com> <20140506130014.GC5134@mx1.yitter.info> <71CF3120-2A5E-4F32-B930-A8810554D370@internet-ecosystem.org> <5368EFE4.7030705@acm.org> Message-ID: On 16:21 06/05/2014, Avri Doria said: >Having said all of that, how will it change the fact that some people >don't like some other peoples modalities of contribution? Dear Avri, I switch to a list I am on. you cannot change that the /1NET list is supposed to help ICANN introducing a true MS process the NTIA can accept. What obviously (whatever your opinion on what an MS process should be) ICANN shows it does not know how to managing it. We have nothing against ICANN itself: they are not responsible from proceeding from an architectural BUG. All I observe is that my French constitutional precautionary duty obliges me (and my fellow citizens, as well as separately my Governement) to have a contingency plan ready. After that, there are two way of seeing the internet architecture: as being hierarchical or distributed. The NTIA's move "opens" the hierachy (enlarging it from Executive to Legislative branch) what unstabilizes the "one unique single root, hat, mail, responsibility, etc." people. But its does not open enough for the independent users who have many things to consider (and for that reason dream to get rid of US money centralisation/mess we are certainly not against America, we are just bored by the US military-industrial-congress financial complex, just as many US people, we are bored to be purchased all the day long and of the poor salesmen tricks being used. I am sure you know that feeling too). This means that the /1NET process which is destined to engineer an agreement for the NTIA support, and the IANAtransition destined to engineed a support for the ICANN candidacy, are failing apart. Simply because the choice of ICANN for the position open by the NTIA is *really* inadequate. They even failed Sao Paulo. IMHO you should try to associate with the reasonable people (not infeodated to old/RFC 6852 concepts) and try to introduce the idea of a reasonable and "clean" alternative (may be with Andrea, Michael, Joseph, Gregory, etc. ?). I would have added Andrew but now he told us he is here by orders (from who?). Nick was promising claiming he wanted to open the internet to trades. But this is gone with the wind. Your alternative should inteligently oppose but not ignore us. This is because critics are always helpful, and because we are gaining momentum: you know national VGNs are a very simple thing to understand for anyone. It consists in showing the US VGN and tell "just ask your Government what your US competitors get from their's". Look at China and Russia. Very good return at a time people are more and more suspicious about TPP and TAFTA, the NTIA/CANN pretend that their MS process is on an equal footing basis, and we have to pay the taxes Google has evaded. I just say, "not to ignore us", because at this stage all we want is to get a contingency plan, not to supersed ICANN. If you help ICANN so that at the end we can trust them: this would be OK. On our side all we have to do to protect our most immediate interests is to convince the NTIA that not listening to our and Willi's vision might be a political fault. If ICANN manages the IG as they manage /1NET and IANAtransition how do you want us to trust them!!! When you start working on one plan, it does not cost much more to work on two. Putting competitiion between them, so the plans becomes better. The worst you could get is that they might cooperate. ICANN said no. We did not. If they keep crying "Dad, they are better than me", Dad might accept it at the end. Take care. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Tue May 6 12:38:30 2014 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?S=C3=A9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:38:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Glad to support and share. Thanks to Diplo and all the great team I've met over the years. Sergio On May 6, 2014 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Thanks, Stephanie, this is a great idea. Social media 'lore' suggests that > the best way to connect to institutions is to connect directly to the > people in them that we know. Personal connections are the essence of crowd > funding, at least in our approach. This is a pilot attempt, so we are > experimenting and any comments, suggestions or feedback are welcome, > perhaps offlist. Please feel free to contact me at gpaque[at]gmail.com(my list address) or virginiap[at] > diplomacy.edu (my Diplo email). > > If anyone can pass on this request, on individuals in organisations of > this (or any other) kind, we would appreciate it very much. > > Cheers, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, > Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical > Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** > * > > > > On 6 May 2014 08:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> This is I a great idea, is there a way to get some of the infrastructure >> players to promote it? I am thinking of ICANN and the registrars.... >> Stephanie Perrin >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and >> aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps >> will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! >> Cheers, Ginger >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, >> Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical >> Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** >> * >> >> >> >> On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for >>>> your IG course? I do! >>>> >>> >>> +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved >>> support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course >>> participants. >>> >>> Regards >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >>> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> * >>> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue May 6 12:45:24 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:45:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] More insight into NSA + Google + US industry cooperation Message-ID: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-google.html . Best. Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 6 18:15:22 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:15:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ] Request for Comments:Enhancing ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53695EFA.8060201@acm.org> fyi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [liaison6c] Request for Comments:Enhancing ICANN Accountability Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:45:54 -0700 From: Glen de Saint Géry To: liaison6c http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.htm Enhancing ICANN Accountability Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 6 May 2014 Comment Close Date: 27 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 28 May 2014 Reply Close Date: 18 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): As announced at ICANN's March 2014 Public Meeting in Singapore, ICANN is initiating a discussion on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. This discussion will look at how ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role. While related to the ongoing discussions around the IANA Stewardship Transition, this is a separate process, though the output of this process is expected to be completed on the same timeframe as the stewardship transition work. Current Status: ICANN is initiating the community discussion on enhancement of ICANN's accountability through the posting of a background document and questions for input. Next Steps: The responses received will be compiled and analyzed. Prior to ICANN's June 2014 Public Meeting in London, ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be requested to start identifying Working Group participants, so that the work can start in earnest at ICANN 50 after community input is received. Staff Contact: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship over key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA asked ICANN, as the IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal for the transition. During discussions around the IANA stewardship transition, the community has also raised the broader topic of the impact of the transition on ICANN accountability. While the community develops a proposal for the transition of NTIA's stewardship role, it is important that the community also address the separate – but interdependent and interrelated – issue of ICANN's accountability. As a result, ICANN is launching a separate process, the scope of which is to look at ICANN remaining accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of the IANA Functions Contract. This second process will examine from an organizational perspective how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government. This includes looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments . This process is additive, not a duplication of any of the reviews called for under the Affirmation of Commitments. This Accountability Process is envisioned to be coordinated by the ICANN Accountability Working Group, comprised of community members as well subject-matter experts in a range of areas, including: * Internet Technical Operations * International Organizational Reviews * Global Accountability Tools and Metrics * Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism * Internet Consumer Protection * Economics (Marketplace and Competition) * Global Ethics Frameworks * Operational, Finance and Process * Board Governance * Transparency * Risk Management The Enhancing ICANN Accountability page sets out the detail of the proposed terms of reference for the process as well as setting forth questions designed to provide input to the ICANN Accountability Working Group. For ease of reference, the questions posed are: * What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? * What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? * Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how? * What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? * Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? * What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? As the public comment period is underway, ICANN will be reaching out to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees regarding the identification of Working Group members. ICANN anticipates that the Working Group will commence its work, including consideration of community input, during ICANN 50 in June 2014. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all. Section II: Background: The Enhancing ICANN Accountability page sets forth detail on the community consultation that led to the creation of this ICANN Accountability Process, as well as an inventory of ICANN's current accountability efforts. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Community input is sought on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal. Further background on the IANA Stewardship Transition is available at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition. Section IV: Additional Information: N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 7 07:02:06 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 12:02:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Third World Network IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome Message-ID: <060b01cf69e3$c975b1a0$5c6114e0$@gmail.com> From: TWN News Date: 7 May 2014 1:59:52 pm IST To: TWN Mailing List Subject: TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome Title : TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome Date : 07 May 2014 Contents: TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May14/03) 7 May 2014 Third World Network www.twn.my Dear friends and colleagues, The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) was held on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Government of Brazil took the initiative for this meeting in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. A report of the Outcome Document from the Sao Paulo NETmundial is reproduced in Item 1 below. One of the controversial issues at the meeting was the principle on the multistakeholder process and decision-making. Item 2 below contains an assessment of the Outcome Document by “Just Net Coalition” (http://justnetcoalition.org/), that is actively engaged in internet governance: “While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.” Other concerns identified by Just Net Coalition over the NETmundial outcome are also explained. The issues highlighted below are highly relevant for the discussion at the United Nations where Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has enthusiastically embraced the “data revolution” and where the multistakeholder approach is seeing growing concerns and criticisms from many civil society organizations. With best wishes, Third World Network _____ ITEM 1 First published in SUNS # 7797 dated 6 May 2014 NETmundial outcome document calls Internet a “global resource” New Delhi, 5 May (K M Gopakumar, TWN) – The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) concludes that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest. The outcome document from the meeting held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on 23-24 April sets out the Internet Governance Principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Even though the document does not reflect the demand of civil society organizations to regard Internet as a global public good the terming of the Internet as a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest, is viewed as a progressive development. According to Parminder Singh of IT for Change, an active civil society participant on internet governance deliberations, “it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language which says that the Internet is ‘a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda’. The new language of the NetMundial outcome document directly makes the case for regulating the Internet as a public utility.” (WSIS is the World Summit on the Information Society that was held in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005, producing the Geneva Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action, the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society: see http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html) The government of Brazil took the initiative in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseffin herUnited Nations General Assembly speech in 2013 stated that the US surveillance on the Internet is a violation of international law. Brazil and Germany sponsored a resolution at the 68th session of UN General Assembly on the right to privacy in the digital age. The outcome document drew from 180 submissions from various stakeholders including governments as a basis to formulate the recommendations. According to the preamble the outcome document (document) is non-binding in nature, resulting from a “bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of people from governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world”. However, the document states that “It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes will feed into other processes and forums, such as the post-2015 development agenda process, WSIS+10, IGF (Internet Governance Forum), and all Internet governance discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels”. According to some observers, even though it is non-binding, the expected frequent citing of the document in subsequent international forums related to internet governance would create a persuasive effect. However, the email exchanges circulating around the meeting reveal that the document was not adopted by consensus. Russia and Cuba refused to join the consensus. India stated that it will have to discuss the document domestically before it can give its position on it. The document identifies a set of principles and values as Internet Governance Principles. These are to contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework, recognizing that the Internet is a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest. These principles are: human rights and shared values, protection of intermediaries, culture and linguistic diversity, unified and unregimented space, security, stability and resilience of the internet, open and distributed architecture, enabling environment for sustainable innovation and creativity, internet governance process principle and open standards. The section on human rights and shared values specifically mentions freedom of expression, freedom of association an right to privacy, accessibility, freedom of information and access to information and development. On privacy the document states: “The right to privacy must be protected. This includes not being subject to arbitrary or unlawful surveillance, collection, treatment and use of personal data. The right to the protection of the law against such interference should be ensured”. In the context of surveillance it states: “Procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, should be reviewed, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all obligations under international human rights law”. The document recognizes economic, social and cultural rights and states that “all people have a right to development and the Internet has a vital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living in poverty the means to participate in development processes”. According to an observer, there is an urgent need to move beyond the dominant human rights discourse on Internet and human rights issues such freedom of expression and right to privacy, and to address the developmental concerns of peoples in developing countries around the Internet. The document lists the following Internet governance process principles: multistakeholder governance; open, participative, consensus driven governance; transparent process; accountable ; inclusive and equitable; distributed, collaborative and enabling meaningful participation, access and low barriers. One of the most contentious negotiations was around the principle on multistakeholder and decision-making. Regarding the multistakeholder issue, the document states that “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.” The draft text stated: “… with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users in their respective roles and responsibilities”. This language on multistakeholders came under criticism form civil society groups. The Just Net Coalition stated, “The document fails to mention the word ‘democracy’ at all - and instead talks only about the multistakeholder model and governance on the basis of consensus. This, even though such systems have failed in protecting the global citizens from drag-net surveillance, the threat of cyber war and the emergence of global monopolies. Such a model also completely ignores the concept of public interest in Internet governance”. Use of the words “democratic multistakeholder process” to ensure “meaningful and accountable participation” is viewed as a reflection of concerns expressed by governments like India and civil society organizations like Just Net Coalition. In its statement on 21 April, Just Net Coalition demanded “a democratic and multistakeholder Internet governance model with different roles and responsibilities, recognizing that corporations and governments cannot be placed on an equal footing in governing the Internet”. Regarding decision-making it clearly states, “Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent possible”. Thus it rejects to a limited extent the demands of the private sector for an equal footing treatment in decision-making. The current Internet governance mechanism facilitated the corporate capture especially by US-based corporations to further their commercial interest, opposing any change in the governance mechanism that now sees an unholy alliance with the transnational corporate sector. Interestingly, the document clearly embraces intellectual property (IP) especially copyright protection, and makes freedom of information and access to information in compliance with copyright law. The human rights principle on freedom of information and access to information states: “Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. Thus the document makes the freedom of information on the Internet consistent with copyright protection, an IP maximalist position. The footprint of the IP lobby is also visible in the principle related to protection of intermediaries. It states: “Intermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects and promotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In this regard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address and deter illegal activity, consistent with fair process.” The words “all stakeholders” include the copyright industry. Further it is also pointed out that the words “cooperation among all stakeholders” promotes the private enforcement of IP rights including copyright. The second part of the document sets out the roadmap, which contains five sections. The first section identifies issues that deserve the attention of all stakeholders in the future evolution of Internet governance. There are eight identified issues and these issues are: “1. Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in different issues. 2. Enhanced cooperation as referred to in the Tunis Agenda to address international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be implemented on a priority and consensual basis. Taking into consideration the efforts of the CSTD (UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development) working group on enhanced cooperation, it is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this discussion in a multistakeholder fashion. 3. Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms. 4. There is a need to develop multistakeholder mechanisms at the national level owing to the fact that a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled at this level. National multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is essential. 5. There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries. 6. Enabling capacity building and empowerment through such measures such as remote participation and adequate funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance. 7. All stakeholders should renew their commitment to build a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society as defined by the WSIS outcome documents. Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance ecosystem, the focus on development should be retained. 8. Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communication and coordination between technical and non-technical communities, providing a better understanding about the policy implications in technical decisions and technical implications in policy decision-making.” The second section of the roadmap deals with institutional improvements. The outcome document recognizes the recommendation of the UN CSTD for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It also contains the following points for the improvement of IGF, which include: (a) Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; (b) Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; (c) Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; (d) The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. Further, the document expresses the hope that “A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” The document also identified reform of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN) as an institutional improvement. It states: “In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of [the] US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. The IANA functions are currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to discuss the adequate relation between the policy and operational aspects. This transition should be conducted thoughtfully with a focus on maintaining the security and stability of the Internet, empowering the principle of equal participation among all stakeholder groups and striving towards a completed transition by September 2015. It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community. The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization”. The third section lists security and stability as issues on specific Internet Governance topics, stating the following: “a. It is necessary to strengthen international cooperation on topics such as jurisdiction and law enforcement assistance to promote cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks should be held in a multistakeholder manner. b. Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security threats should involve appropriate collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, academia and technical community. There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators and software developers. c. There is room for new forums and initiatives. However, they should not duplicate, but add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity organizations.” On mass surveillance it states “Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Collection and processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects.” The fourth section of the roadmap identifies the following issues for future deliberations: Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance, including the meaning and application of equal footing; Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance; Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of Internet governance principles; and Net neutrality. An observer expressed concern about the process of the NETmundial negotiations, which allowed the negotiation of the outcome document within a multistakeholder framework and replacing the exclusive negotiations among governments. Supporters of multistakeholder processes already started projecting it as the ideal negotiation format for future negotiations on Internet governance. The President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff in her inaugural address stated that the idea of the NETmundial is to “lend a new momentum to the ongoing discussions in a much needed sense of urgency”. She said “The first such premise is that we all want to protect the Internet as a democratic space, available to end use by all, as a shared asset, and as such, truly heritage of humankind, more than simply a work tool and way beyond its well‐known contribution for economic growth, provided, of course, that it be increasingly inclusive. The second premise or assumption is the desire we all share to incorporate an increasingly broader audience into this process. May I remind all ladies and gentlemen and friends attending this session that Brazil advocates that Internet governance should be multisectoral, multilateral, democratic, and transparent in nature”. On the dominance of the US role in the current Internet governance mechanism she said, “I also attach a great deal of importance to the multilateral perspective, according to which government participation should occur on an equal footing among governments in such a way as to ensure that no country will have or bear greater weight vis‐a‐vis other countries”. She further said: “Our advocacy of the multilateral model is the natural consequence of an elementary principle that should govern today's international relations as enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution. I'm talking about equality among states. We, therefore, see no opposition whatsoever between multi‐‐‐or the multilateral and the multisectoral nature of the Internet. Actually, the opposite of that would be a one‐sided unilateral Internet which is untenable”. She clearly stated “multisectoral arrangements that are, in turn, subject to oversight by one or few states are not acceptable either”.+ _____ ITEM 2 Just Net Coalition Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document Document: http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed by different actors in the future. For the Just Net Coalition, “democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance” means democratic processes with clear guidelines for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not favour the “equal-footing multi-stakeholder model” and thus a clear departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed norms, such as happened at NetMundial. The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed “in the public interest”. While falling short of the civil society demand for characterizing the Internet as a “global commons” or “public good”, it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says that the Internet is “a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda”. We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic multi-stakeholder model President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final outcome document in the roadmap section accepts “the full involvement of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities” and is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. The outcome document has further held, “Governments have primary, legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights”. The NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing these new openings will involve clear definitions and guidelines for the “democratic multistakeholder process” model. NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalizing multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of “multistakeholderism in practice” included the seemingly open format of “selecting” the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which ultimately only works for the few? In this regard, we see the reference to “democratic multistakeholder processes” in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now need to spell out what would constitute “democratic multistakeholder processes”. This of course includes the NetMundial call for further discussions on “different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance” and its two references to “respective roles and responsibilities”. This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration of what is a “democratic multistakeholder process” where, of course, corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions regarding public policy issues. The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens they represent. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. Marco Civil – the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to bury net neutrality in the “Future Plans” section of the NetMundial outcome document. Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not validly part of it: First, while references to the “right to access, share, create and distribute information” exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is limited to what is “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. The right to share and communicate has now been circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made legal. Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet users, has now been coupled with “private policing” for enforcing Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging “cooperation among all stakeholders” in order to “address and deter illegal activity” which is in fact, well understood as coded language for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries. It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet and the digital economy. Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the “open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community” for “discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends.” Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) May 3, 2014 http://JustNetCoalition.org (1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that “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....”. (2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). (3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with the US government. - end - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 7 07:08:08 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 23:08:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Third World Network IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome In-Reply-To: <060b01cf69e3$c975b1a0$5c6114e0$@gmail.com> References: <060b01cf69e3$c975b1a0$5c6114e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Who is the Third World Network? Sala > On May 7, 2014, at 11:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > From: TWN News > Date: 7 May 2014 1:59:52 pm IST > To: TWN Mailing List > Subject: TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome > > Title : TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome > Date : 07 May 2014 > > Contents: > TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May14/03) > 7 May 2014 > Third World Network > www.twn.my > > Dear friends and colleagues, > > The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) was held on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Government of Brazil took the initiative for this meeting in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. A report of the Outcome Document from the Sao Paulo NETmundial is reproduced in Item 1 below. > > One of the controversial issues at the meeting was the principle on the multistakeholder process and decision-making. Item 2 below contains an assessment of the Outcome Document by “Just Net Coalition” (http://justnetcoalition.org/), that is actively engaged in internet governance: “While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.” > > Other concerns identified by Just Net Coalition over the NETmundial outcome are also explained. > > The issues highlighted below are highly relevant for the discussion at the United Nations where Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has enthusiastically embraced the “data revolution” and where the multistakeholder approach is seeing growing concerns and criticisms from many civil society organizations. > > With best wishes, > Third World Network > > > ITEM 1 > > First published in SUNS # 7797 dated 6 May 2014 > > NETmundial outcome document calls Internet a “global resource” > > New Delhi, 5 May (K M Gopakumar, TWN) – The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) concludes that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest. > > The outcome document from the meeting held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on 23-24 April sets out the Internet Governance Principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem. > > Even though the document does not reflect the demand of civil society organizations to regard Internet as a global public good the terming of the Internet as a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest, is viewed as a progressive development. According to Parminder Singh of IT for Change, an active civil society participant on internet governance deliberations, “it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language which says that the Internet is ‘a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda’. The new language of the NetMundial outcome document directly makes the case for regulating the Internet as a public utility.” > > (WSIS is the World Summit on the Information Society that was held in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005, producing the Geneva Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action, the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society: see http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html) > > The government of Brazil took the initiative in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseffin herUnited Nations General Assembly speech in 2013 stated that the US surveillance on the Internet is a violation of international law. Brazil and Germany sponsored a resolution at the 68th session of UN General Assembly on the right to privacy in the digital age. > > The outcome document drew from 180 submissions from various stakeholders including governments as a basis to formulate the recommendations. > > According to the preamble the outcome document (document) is non-binding in nature, resulting from a “bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of people from governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world”. However, the document states that “It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes will feed into other processes and forums, such as the post-2015 development agenda process, WSIS+10, IGF (Internet Governance Forum), and all Internet governance discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels”. > > According to some observers, even though it is non-binding, the expected frequent citing of the document in subsequent international forums related to internet governance would create a persuasive effect. > > However, the email exchanges circulating around the meeting reveal that the document was not adopted by consensus. Russia and Cuba refused to join the consensus. India stated that it will have to discuss the document domestically before it can give its position on it. > > The document identifies a set of principles and values as Internet Governance Principles. These are to contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework, recognizing that the Internet is a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest. > > These principles are: human rights and shared values, protection of intermediaries, culture and linguistic diversity, unified and unregimented space, security, stability and resilience of the internet, open and distributed architecture, enabling environment for sustainable innovation and creativity, internet governance process principle and open standards. > > The section on human rights and shared values specifically mentions freedom of expression, freedom of association an right to privacy, accessibility, freedom of information and access to information and development. > > On privacy the document states: “The right to privacy must be protected. This includes not being subject to arbitrary or unlawful surveillance, collection, treatment and use of personal data. The right to the protection of the law against such interference should be ensured”. > > In the context of surveillance it states: “Procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, should be reviewed, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all obligations under international human rights law”. > > The document recognizes economic, social and cultural rights and states that “all people have a right to development and the Internet has a vital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living in poverty the means to participate in development processes”. > > According to an observer, there is an urgent need to move beyond the dominant human rights discourse on Internet and human rights issues such freedom of expression and right to privacy, and to address the developmental concerns of peoples in developing countries around the Internet. > > The document lists the following Internet governance process principles: multistakeholder governance; open, participative, consensus driven governance; transparent process; accountable ; inclusive and equitable; distributed, collaborative and enabling meaningful participation, access and low barriers. > > One of the most contentious negotiations was around the principle on multistakeholder and decision-making. Regarding the multistakeholder issue, the document states that “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.” > > The draft text stated: “… with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users in their respective roles and responsibilities”. > > This language on multistakeholders came under criticism form civil society groups. The Just Net Coalition stated, “The document fails to mention the word ‘democracy’ at all - and instead talks only about the multistakeholder model and governance on the basis of consensus. This, even though such systems have failed in protecting the global citizens from drag-net surveillance, the threat of cyber war and the emergence of global monopolies. Such a model also completely ignores the concept of public interest in Internet governance”. > > Use of the words “democratic multistakeholder process” to ensure “meaningful and accountable participation” is viewed as a reflection of concerns expressed by governments like India and civil society organizations like Just Net Coalition. In its statement on 21 April, Just Net Coalition demanded “a democratic and multistakeholder Internet governance model with different roles and responsibilities, recognizing that corporations and governments cannot be placed on an equal footing in governing the Internet”. > > Regarding decision-making it clearly states, “Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent possible”. Thus it rejects to a limited extent the demands of the private sector for an equal footing treatment in decision-making. > > The current Internet governance mechanism facilitated the corporate capture especially by US-based corporations to further their commercial interest, opposing any change in the governance mechanism that now sees an unholy alliance with the transnational corporate sector. > > Interestingly, the document clearly embraces intellectual property (IP) especially copyright protection, and makes freedom of information and access to information in compliance with copyright law. The human rights principle on freedom of information and access to information states: “Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. Thus the document makes the freedom of information on the Internet consistent with copyright protection, an IP maximalist position. > > The footprint of the IP lobby is also visible in the principle related to protection of intermediaries. It states: “Intermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects and promotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In this regard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address and deter illegal activity, consistent with fair process.” The words “all stakeholders” include the copyright industry. Further it is also pointed out that the words “cooperation among all stakeholders” promotes the private enforcement of IP rights including copyright. > > The second part of the document sets out the roadmap, which contains five sections. The first section identifies issues that deserve the attention of all stakeholders in the future evolution of Internet governance. There are eight identified issues and these issues are: > > “1. Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in different issues. > > 2. Enhanced cooperation as referred to in the Tunis Agenda to address international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be implemented on a priority and consensual basis. Taking into consideration the efforts of the CSTD (UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development) working group on enhanced cooperation, it is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this discussion in a multistakeholder fashion. > > 3. Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms. > > 4. There is a need to develop multistakeholder mechanisms at the national level owing to the fact that a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled at this level. National multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is essential. > > 5. There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries. > > 6. Enabling capacity building and empowerment through such measures such as remote participation and adequate funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance. > > 7. All stakeholders should renew their commitment to build a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society as defined by the WSIS outcome documents. Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance ecosystem, the focus on development should be retained. > > 8. Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communication and coordination between technical and non-technical communities, providing a better understanding about the policy implications in technical decisions and technical implications in policy decision-making.” > > The second section of the roadmap deals with institutional improvements. The outcome document recognizes the recommendation of the UN CSTD for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It also contains the following points for the improvement of IGF, which include: (a) Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; (b) Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; (c) Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; (d) The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > > Further, the document expresses the hope that “A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” > > The document also identified reform of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN) as an institutional improvement. It states: > > “In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of [the] US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. > > The IANA functions are currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to discuss the adequate relation between the policy and operational aspects. > > This transition should be conducted thoughtfully with a focus on maintaining the security and stability of the Internet, empowering the principle of equal participation among all stakeholder groups and striving towards a completed transition by September 2015. > > It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community. > > The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization”. > > The third section lists security and stability as issues on specific Internet Governance topics, stating the following: > > “a. It is necessary to strengthen international cooperation on topics such as jurisdiction and law enforcement assistance to promote cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks should be held in a multistakeholder manner. > > b. Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security threats should involve appropriate collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, academia and technical community. There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators and software developers. > > c. There is room for new forums and initiatives. However, they should not duplicate, but add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity organizations.” > > On mass surveillance it states “Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Collection and processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects.” > > The fourth section of the roadmap identifies the following issues for future deliberations: Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance, including the meaning and application of equal footing; Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance; Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of Internet governance principles; and Net neutrality. > > An observer expressed concern about the process of the NETmundial negotiations, which allowed the negotiation of the outcome document within a multistakeholder framework and replacing the exclusive negotiations among governments. Supporters of multistakeholder processes already started projecting it as the ideal negotiation format for future negotiations on Internet governance. > > The President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff in her inaugural address stated that the idea of the NETmundial is to “lend a new momentum to the ongoing discussions in a much needed sense of urgency”. > > She said “The first such premise is that we all want to protect the Internet as a democratic space, available to end use by all, as a shared asset, and as such, truly heritage of humankind, more than simply a work tool and way beyond its well‐known contribution for economic growth, provided, of course, that it be increasingly inclusive. The second premise or assumption is the desire we all share to incorporate an increasingly broader audience into this process. May I remind all ladies and gentlemen and friends attending this session that Brazil advocates that Internet governance should be multisectoral, multilateral, democratic, and transparent in nature”. > > On the dominance of the US role in the current Internet governance mechanism she said, “I also attach a great deal of importance to the multilateral perspective, according to which government participation should occur on an equal footing among governments in such a way as to ensure that no country will have or bear greater weight vis‐a‐vis other countries”. > > She further said: “Our advocacy of the multilateral model is the natural consequence of an elementary principle that should govern today's international relations as enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution. I'm talking about equality among states. We, therefore, see no opposition whatsoever between multi‐‐‐or the multilateral and the multisectoral nature of the Internet. Actually, the opposite of that would be a one‐sided unilateral Internet which is untenable”. > > She clearly stated “multisectoral arrangements that are, in turn, subject to oversight by one or few states are not acceptable either”.+ > > > ITEM 2 > > Just Net Coalition Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document > Document: http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document > > The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed by different actors in the future. > > For the Just Net Coalition, “democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance” means democratic processes with clear guidelines for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not favour the “equal-footing multi-stakeholder model” and thus a clear departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. > > While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. > > We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. > > In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed norms, such as happened at NetMundial. > > The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed “in the public interest”. While falling short of the civil society demand for characterizing the Internet as a “global commons” or “public good”, it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says that the Internet is “a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda”. > > We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. > > The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic multi-stakeholder model > > President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final outcome document in the roadmap section accepts “the full involvement of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities” and is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. > > The outcome document has further held, “Governments have primary, legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights”. The NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing these new openings will involve clear definitions and guidelines for the “democratic multistakeholder process” model. > > NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalizing multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of “multistakeholderism in practice” included the seemingly open format of “selecting” the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which ultimately only works for the few? > > In this regard, we see the reference to “democratic multistakeholder processes” in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now need to spell out what would constitute “democratic multistakeholder processes”. This of course includes the NetMundial call for further discussions on “different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance” and its two references to “respective roles and responsibilities”. This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration of what is a “democratic multistakeholder process” where, of course, corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions regarding public policy issues. > > The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens they represent. > > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. > > Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory > > We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. > > Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. > > In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. > > Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. Marco Civil – the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to bury net neutrality in the “Future Plans” section of the NetMundial outcome document. > > Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not validly part of it: > > First, while references to the “right to access, share, create and distribute information” exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is limited to what is “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. The right to share and communicate has now been circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made legal. > > Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet users, has now been coupled with “private policing” for enforcing Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging “cooperation among all stakeholders” in order to “address and deter illegal activity” which is in fact, well understood as coded language for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries. > > It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. > > Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet and the digital economy. > > Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the “open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community” for “discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends.” > > Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) > May 3, 2014 > http://JustNetCoalition.org > > (1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that “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....”. > > (2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). > > (3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with the US government. > > - end - > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved > To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 7 07:21:17 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 12:21:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Third World Network IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome In-Reply-To: References: <060b01cf69e3$c975b1a0$5c6114e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <062501cf69e6$776228f0$66267ad0$@gmail.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World_Network http://www.twnside.org.sg/ http://www.twnside.org.sg/twnintro.htm M From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Third World Network IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome Who is the Third World Network? Sala On May 7, 2014, at 11:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: From: TWN News Date: 7 May 2014 1:59:52 pm IST To: TWN Mailing List Subject: TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome Title : TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome Date : 07 May 2014 Contents: TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May14/03) 7 May 2014 Third World Network www.twn.my Dear friends and colleagues, The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) was held on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Government of Brazil took the initiative for this meeting in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. A report of the Outcome Document from the Sao Paulo NETmundial is reproduced in Item 1 below. One of the controversial issues at the meeting was the principle on the multistakeholder process and decision-making. Item 2 below contains an assessment of the Outcome Document by “Just Net Coalition” (http://justnetcoalition.org/), that is actively engaged in internet governance: “While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.” Other concerns identified by Just Net Coalition over the NETmundial outcome are also explained. The issues highlighted below are highly relevant for the discussion at the United Nations where Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has enthusiastically embraced the “data revolution” and where the multistakeholder approach is seeing growing concerns and criticisms from many civil society organizations. With best wishes, Third World Network _____ ITEM 1 First published in SUNS # 7797 dated 6 May 2014 NETmundial outcome document calls Internet a “global resource” New Delhi, 5 May (K M Gopakumar, TWN) – The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) concludes that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest. The outcome document from the meeting held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on 23-24 April sets out the Internet Governance Principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Even though the document does not reflect the demand of civil society organizations to regard Internet as a global public good the terming of the Internet as a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest, is viewed as a progressive development. According to Parminder Singh of IT for Change, an active civil society participant on internet governance deliberations, “it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language which says that the Internet is ‘a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda’. The new language of the NetMundial outcome document directly makes the case for regulating the Internet as a public utility.” (WSIS is the World Summit on the Information Society that was held in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005, producing the Geneva Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action, the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society: see http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html) The government of Brazil took the initiative in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseffin herUnited Nations General Assembly speech in 2013 stated that the US surveillance on the Internet is a violation of international law. Brazil and Germany sponsored a resolution at the 68th session of UN General Assembly on the right to privacy in the digital age. The outcome document drew from 180 submissions from various stakeholders including governments as a basis to formulate the recommendations. According to the preamble the outcome document (document) is non-binding in nature, resulting from a “bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of people from governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world”. However, the document states that “It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes will feed into other processes and forums, such as the post-2015 development agenda process, WSIS+10, IGF (Internet Governance Forum), and all Internet governance discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels”. According to some observers, even though it is non-binding, the expected frequent citing of the document in subsequent international forums related to internet governance would create a persuasive effect. However, the email exchanges circulating around the meeting reveal that the document was not adopted by consensus. Russia and Cuba refused to join the consensus. India stated that it will have to discuss the document domestically before it can give its position on it. The document identifies a set of principles and values as Internet Governance Principles. These are to contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework, recognizing that the Internet is a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest. These principles are: human rights and shared values, protection of intermediaries, culture and linguistic diversity, unified and unregimented space, security, stability and resilience of the internet, open and distributed architecture, enabling environment for sustainable innovation and creativity, internet governance process principle and open standards. The section on human rights and shared values specifically mentions freedom of expression, freedom of association an right to privacy, accessibility, freedom of information and access to information and development. On privacy the document states: “The right to privacy must be protected. This includes not being subject to arbitrary or unlawful surveillance, collection, treatment and use of personal data. The right to the protection of the law against such interference should be ensured”. In the context of surveillance it states: “Procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, should be reviewed, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all obligations under international human rights law”. The document recognizes economic, social and cultural rights and states that “all people have a right to development and the Internet has a vital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living in poverty the means to participate in development processes”. According to an observer, there is an urgent need to move beyond the dominant human rights discourse on Internet and human rights issues such freedom of expression and right to privacy, and to address the developmental concerns of peoples in developing countries around the Internet. The document lists the following Internet governance process principles: multistakeholder governance; open, participative, consensus driven governance; transparent process; accountable ; inclusive and equitable; distributed, collaborative and enabling meaningful participation, access and low barriers. One of the most contentious negotiations was around the principle on multistakeholder and decision-making. Regarding the multistakeholder issue, the document states that “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.” The draft text stated: “… with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users in their respective roles and responsibilities”. This language on multistakeholders came under criticism form civil society groups. The Just Net Coalition stated, “The document fails to mention the word ‘democracy’ at all - and instead talks only about the multistakeholder model and governance on the basis of consensus. This, even though such systems have failed in protecting the global citizens from drag-net surveillance, the threat of cyber war and the emergence of global monopolies. Such a model also completely ignores the concept of public interest in Internet governance”. Use of the words “democratic multistakeholder process” to ensure “meaningful and accountable participation” is viewed as a reflection of concerns expressed by governments like India and civil society organizations like Just Net Coalition. In its statement on 21 April, Just Net Coalition demanded “a democratic and multistakeholder Internet governance model with different roles and responsibilities, recognizing that corporations and governments cannot be placed on an equal footing in governing the Internet”. Regarding decision-making it clearly states, “Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent possible”. Thus it rejects to a limited extent the demands of the private sector for an equal footing treatment in decision-making. The current Internet governance mechanism facilitated the corporate capture especially by US-based corporations to further their commercial interest, opposing any change in the governance mechanism that now sees an unholy alliance with the transnational corporate sector. Interestingly, the document clearly embraces intellectual property (IP) especially copyright protection, and makes freedom of information and access to information in compliance with copyright law. The human rights principle on freedom of information and access to information states: “Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. Thus the document makes the freedom of information on the Internet consistent with copyright protection, an IP maximalist position. The footprint of the IP lobby is also visible in the principle related to protection of intermediaries. It states: “Intermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects and promotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In this regard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address and deter illegal activity, consistent with fair process.” The words “all stakeholders” include the copyright industry. Further it is also pointed out that the words “cooperation among all stakeholders” promotes the private enforcement of IP rights including copyright. The second part of the document sets out the roadmap, which contains five sections. The first section identifies issues that deserve the attention of all stakeholders in the future evolution of Internet governance. There are eight identified issues and these issues are: “1. Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in different issues. 2. Enhanced cooperation as referred to in the Tunis Agenda to address international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be implemented on a priority and consensual basis. Taking into consideration the efforts of the CSTD (UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development) working group on enhanced cooperation, it is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this discussion in a multistakeholder fashion. 3. Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms. 4. There is a need to develop multistakeholder mechanisms at the national level owing to the fact that a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled at this level. National multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is essential. 5. There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries. 6. Enabling capacity building and empowerment through such measures such as remote participation and adequate funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance. 7. All stakeholders should renew their commitment to build a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society as defined by the WSIS outcome documents. Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance ecosystem, the focus on development should be retained. 8. Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communication and coordination between technical and non-technical communities, providing a better understanding about the policy implications in technical decisions and technical implications in policy decision-making.” The second section of the roadmap deals with institutional improvements. The outcome document recognizes the recommendation of the UN CSTD for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It also contains the following points for the improvement of IGF, which include: (a) Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; (b) Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; (c) Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; (d) The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. Further, the document expresses the hope that “A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” The document also identified reform of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN) as an institutional improvement. It states: “In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of [the] US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. The IANA functions are currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to discuss the adequate relation between the policy and operational aspects. This transition should be conducted thoughtfully with a focus on maintaining the security and stability of the Internet, empowering the principle of equal participation among all stakeholder groups and striving towards a completed transition by September 2015. It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community. The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization”. The third section lists security and stability as issues on specific Internet Governance topics, stating the following: “a. It is necessary to strengthen international cooperation on topics such as jurisdiction and law enforcement assistance to promote cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks should be held in a multistakeholder manner. b. Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security threats should involve appropriate collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, academia and technical community. There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators and software developers. c. There is room for new forums and initiatives. However, they should not duplicate, but add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity organizations.” On mass surveillance it states “Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Collection and processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects.” The fourth section of the roadmap identifies the following issues for future deliberations: Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance, including the meaning and application of equal footing; Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance; Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of Internet governance principles; and Net neutrality. An observer expressed concern about the process of the NETmundial negotiations, which allowed the negotiation of the outcome document within a multistakeholder framework and replacing the exclusive negotiations among governments. Supporters of multistakeholder processes already started projecting it as the ideal negotiation format for future negotiations on Internet governance. The President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff in her inaugural address stated that the idea of the NETmundial is to “lend a new momentum to the ongoing discussions in a much needed sense of urgency”. She said “The first such premise is that we all want to protect the Internet as a democratic space, available to end use by all, as a shared asset, and as such, truly heritage of humankind, more than simply a work tool and way beyond its well‐known contribution for economic growth, provided, of course, that it be increasingly inclusive. The second premise or assumption is the desire we all share to incorporate an increasingly broader audience into this process. May I remind all ladies and gentlemen and friends attending this session that Brazil advocates that Internet governance should be multisectoral, multilateral, democratic, and transparent in nature”. On the dominance of the US role in the current Internet governance mechanism she said, “I also attach a great deal of importance to the multilateral perspective, according to which government participation should occur on an equal footing among governments in such a way as to ensure that no country will have or bear greater weight vis‐a‐vis other countries”. She further said: “Our advocacy of the multilateral model is the natural consequence of an elementary principle that should govern today's international relations as enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution. I'm talking about equality among states. We, therefore, see no opposition whatsoever between multi‐‐‐or the multilateral and the multisectoral nature of the Internet. Actually, the opposite of that would be a one‐sided unilateral Internet which is untenable”. She clearly stated “multisectoral arrangements that are, in turn, subject to oversight by one or few states are not acceptable either”.+ _____ ITEM 2 Just Net Coalition Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document Document: http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed by different actors in the future. For the Just Net Coalition, “democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance” means democratic processes with clear guidelines for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not favour the “equal-footing multi-stakeholder model” and thus a clear departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed norms, such as happened at NetMundial. The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed “in the public interest”. While falling short of the civil society demand for characterizing the Internet as a “global commons” or “public good”, it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says that the Internet is “a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda”. We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic multi-stakeholder model President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final outcome document in the roadmap section accepts “the full involvement of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities” and is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. The outcome document has further held, “Governments have primary, legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights”. The NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing these new openings will involve clear definitions and guidelines for the “democratic multistakeholder process” model. NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalizing multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of “multistakeholderism in practice” included the seemingly open format of “selecting” the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which ultimately only works for the few? In this regard, we see the reference to “democratic multistakeholder processes” in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now need to spell out what would constitute “democratic multistakeholder processes”. This of course includes the NetMundial call for further discussions on “different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance” and its two references to “respective roles and responsibilities”. This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration of what is a “democratic multistakeholder process” where, of course, corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions regarding public policy issues. The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens they represent. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. Marco Civil – the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to bury net neutrality in the “Future Plans” section of the NetMundial outcome document. Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not validly part of it: First, while references to the “right to access, share, create and distribute information” exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is limited to what is “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. The right to share and communicate has now been circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made legal. Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet users, has now been coupled with “private policing” for enforcing Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging “cooperation among all stakeholders” in order to “address and deter illegal activity” which is in fact, well understood as coded language for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries. It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet and the digital economy. Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the “open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community” for “discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends.” Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) May 3, 2014 http://JustNetCoalition.org (1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that “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....”. (2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). (3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with the US government. - end - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vladar at diplomacy.edu Wed May 7 07:58:49 2014 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 13:58:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [NETmundial] Copy of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: <53695548.7050904@netmundial.br> References: <53695548.7050904@netmundial.br> Message-ID: <01a701cf69eb$b609cb80$221d6280$@diplomacy.edu> English version of Marco Civil (attached). Thanks to Carolina Rossini who worked on the translation. Best! Vlada From: Secretariat [mailto:secretariat at netmundial.br] Sent: 06 May 2014 23:34 To: vladar at diplomacy.edu Subject: [NETmundial] Copy of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights Dear participants of NETmundial, As mentioned during our meeting in Sao Paulo, we are providing you a copy of the Brazilian recently approved Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet), with a free translation of the original text into English. This is the final result of the reaction from Brazilian society to a growing trend within the National Parliament: the adoption of criminal laws for coping with illicit activities on the Internet. Marco Civil was drafted on-line and off-line after two years (2009-2011) of open, plural, and democratic public consultations in full conformity with the multistakeholder model to serve as a chart of rights and duties of Internet users and all other stakeholders involved. From 2011 to 2014, the document was fiercely discussed within the National Parliament. In 2014, the two houses of the Parliament formally approved the Bill, which was sanctioned by President Dilma Rousseff at the opening ceremony of NETmundial. Marco Civil reiterates the principles comprised in the Decalogue; it states fundamental rights and duties of all of the stakeholders (including by stating normative horizons to be pursued by the Brazilian government); it operationalizes the net neutrality principle and rules related to third party liability, as well as to the protection of privacy and personal data and communications, including formal and institutional limitations to access to data and metadata by public and private actors. Also, Internet governance in Brazil counts on a full-fledged multistakeholder model institutionalized around a Steering Committee (CGI.br) comprised of representatives from the government, the private sector, civil society, and from the academic and technical communities. For almost two decades, CGI.br has served the Brazilian society as the focal point for the development of technical and policy orientations related to the use and the development of the Internet in the country. One of its most cherished accomplishments so far is the "Decalogue", a list of ten fundamental principles for Internet governance that has been carefully crafted after two years of intense work and was consensually approved by all the Committee Members (CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P). The Decalogue is rooted in the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, privacy, and other human rights as the foundation for a just and democratic society. Accordingly, it declares that universal access to the Internet should be promoted as the linchpin of human development and social equality. It also declares that Internet governance should be democratic and collaborative, with the participation of all sectors of society and should be oriented for the promotion of diversity and innovation, as well as for the maintenance of the openness, the interoperable character, and the security and stability of the network, which led to an express provision recognizing the non liability of intermediaries for the actions of end users. One of the central tenets of the Decalogue is net neutrality, which becomes formally recognized as a fundamental pillar of the Internet. All of those principles form the benchmark for any legal or regulatory framework to be enacted in Brazil. According to Marco Civil's text, CGI.br must be heard before the government makes any regulation or takes any decision on net neutrality. Therefore, not only Anatel, the country's telecommunications agency, will be heard, but also CGI.br. In sum, Marco Civil embodies the ethos of Internet governance in Brazil and highlights the importance of the Decalogue and the multi-stakeholder approach entailed by the work of CGI.br. Deputy Alessandro Molon, who was Marco Civil's rapporteur, will be happy to answer questions that you may have about the law. Hartmut Glaser, from Steering Committee (CGI.br), will also gladly answer questions about the committee. Please e-mail us at molon at molon.com.br and/or glaser at cgi.br -- Best Regards, NETmundial Executive Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPROVED-MARCO-CIVIL-MAY-2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 89399 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed May 7 09:05:31 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 10:05:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Third World Network IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome In-Reply-To: References: <060b01cf69e3$c975b1a0$5c6114e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <536A2F9B.6000806@cafonso.ca> Below is the "about TWN" from their Web portal. TWN has been one of the most significant civil society networks at least in the 80s and 90s, and its relevance until today is well known. Names like Martin Khor (since 2009 director of the South Centre), Roberto Bissio, Chakravarthi Raghavan and several others remind us of the importance of their work. [http://www.twnside.org.sg/twnintro.htm] INTRODUCTION Third World Network (TWN) is an independent non-profit international network of organisations and individuals involved in issues relating to development, developing countries and North-South affairs. TWN was formed in November 1984 in Penang, Malaysia at the concluding session of an International Conference on "The Third World: Development or Crisis?" organised by the Consumers' Association of Penang and attended by over a hundred participants from 21 countries. At this conference, TWN was formed to especially strengthen cooperation among development and environment groups in the South. Its mission is to bring about a greater articulation of the needs and rights of peoples in the South, a fair distribution of world resources, and forms of development which are ecologically sustainable and fulfill human needs. TWN’s objectives are to deepen the understanding of the development dilemmas and challenges facing developing countries and to contribute to policy changes in pursuit of just, equitable and ecologically sustainable development. To achieve these objectives TWN conducts research on economic, social and environmental issues pertaining to the South; publishes books and magazines; organises and participates in conferences, seminars and workshops; and provides a platform representing broadly Third World interests and perspectives at international fora such as United Nations agencies, conferences and processes, WTO , the World Bank and IMF. The TWN website contains information on economics, environment and other issues from a development perspective. There is also a dedicated website for biosafety, finance and development and bilateral free trade agreements. Selected Mandarin Chinese translations of TWN's web materials are available at http://twnchinese.net. TWN's International Secretariat is in Penang (Malaysia) with offices in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) and Geneva (Switzerland). There are researchers based in Beijing, Delhi, Jakarta, Manila and New York. The Latin America Regional Secretariat is located in Montevideo (Uruguay) and the African Regional Secretariat is in Accra (Ghana). TWN PUBLICATIONS Third World Resurgence – a monthly magazine on development, ecology, economics, health, alternatives and South-North relations. Third World Economics – a bi-monthly economics magazine focussing on the GATT/WTO, the World Bank/IMF, etc. SUNS bulletin – the daily South-North Development bulletin published from Geneva, Switzerland. TWN Features Service – a service to the media providing three features a week. For more information, a publications catalogue and subscriptions details, please write to or e-mail TWN publications department. CONTACT DETAILS Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159 Fax: 60-4-2264505 Email twnet at po.jaring.my Third World Network 36 Rue de Lausanne Geneva 1201 Switzerland Tel: 41-22-908-3550 Fax: 41-22-908-3551 Email twngeneva at bluewin.ch fraternal regards --c.a. On 05/07/2014 08:08 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Who is the Third World Network? > > Sala > > > > > >> On May 7, 2014, at 11:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> >> From: TWN News >> Date: 7 May 2014 1:59:52 pm IST >> To: TWN Mailing List >> Subject: TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Mixed reactions to internet governance meeting outcome >> Date : 07 May 2014 >> >> Contents: >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May14/03) >> 7 May 2014 >> Third World Network >> www.twn.my >> >> Dear friends and colleagues, >> >> The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) was held on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Government of Brazil took the initiative for this meeting in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. A report of the Outcome Document from the Sao Paulo NETmundial is reproduced in Item 1 below. >> >> One of the controversial issues at the meeting was the principle on the multistakeholder process and decision-making. Item 2 below contains an assessment of the Outcome Document by “Just Net Coalition” (http://justnetcoalition.org/), that is actively engaged in internet governance: “While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.” >> >> Other concerns identified by Just Net Coalition over the NETmundial outcome are also explained. >> >> The issues highlighted below are highly relevant for the discussion at the United Nations where Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has enthusiastically embraced the “data revolution” and where the multistakeholder approach is seeing growing concerns and criticisms from many civil society organizations. >> >> With best wishes, >> Third World Network >> >> >> ITEM 1 >> >> First published in SUNS # 7797 dated 6 May 2014 >> >> NETmundial outcome document calls Internet a “global resource” >> >> New Delhi, 5 May (K M Gopakumar, TWN) – The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) concludes that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest. >> >> The outcome document from the meeting held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on 23-24 April sets out the Internet Governance Principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem. >> >> Even though the document does not reflect the demand of civil society organizations to regard Internet as a global public good the terming of the Internet as a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest, is viewed as a progressive development. According to Parminder Singh of IT for Change, an active civil society participant on internet governance deliberations, “it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language which says that the Internet is ‘a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda’. The new language of the NetMundial outcome document directly makes the case for regulating the Internet as a public utility.” >> >> (WSIS is the World Summit on the Information Society that was held in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005, producing the Geneva Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action, the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society: see http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html) >> >> The government of Brazil took the initiative in response to the Edward Snowden revelations on the United States of America’s spying infrastructure on the Internet. The revelations led Brazil to demand the restructuring of the existing Internet governance mechanism, which is currently under the direct and indirect control of the US. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseffin herUnited Nations General Assembly speech in 2013 stated that the US surveillance on the Internet is a violation of international law. Brazil and Germany sponsored a resolution at the 68th session of UN General Assembly on the right to privacy in the digital age. >> >> The outcome document drew from 180 submissions from various stakeholders including governments as a basis to formulate the recommendations. >> >> According to the preamble the outcome document (document) is non-binding in nature, resulting from a “bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of people from governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world”. However, the document states that “It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes will feed into other processes and forums, such as the post-2015 development agenda process, WSIS+10, IGF (Internet Governance Forum), and all Internet governance discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels”. >> >> According to some observers, even though it is non-binding, the expected frequent citing of the document in subsequent international forums related to internet governance would create a persuasive effect. >> >> However, the email exchanges circulating around the meeting reveal that the document was not adopted by consensus. Russia and Cuba refused to join the consensus. India stated that it will have to discuss the document domestically before it can give its position on it. >> >> The document identifies a set of principles and values as Internet Governance Principles. These are to contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework, recognizing that the Internet is a global resource, which should be managed in the public interest. >> >> These principles are: human rights and shared values, protection of intermediaries, culture and linguistic diversity, unified and unregimented space, security, stability and resilience of the internet, open and distributed architecture, enabling environment for sustainable innovation and creativity, internet governance process principle and open standards. >> >> The section on human rights and shared values specifically mentions freedom of expression, freedom of association an right to privacy, accessibility, freedom of information and access to information and development. >> >> On privacy the document states: “The right to privacy must be protected. This includes not being subject to arbitrary or unlawful surveillance, collection, treatment and use of personal data. The right to the protection of the law against such interference should be ensured”. >> >> In the context of surveillance it states: “Procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, should be reviewed, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all obligations under international human rights law”. >> >> The document recognizes economic, social and cultural rights and states that “all people have a right to development and the Internet has a vital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living in poverty the means to participate in development processes”. >> >> According to an observer, there is an urgent need to move beyond the dominant human rights discourse on Internet and human rights issues such freedom of expression and right to privacy, and to address the developmental concerns of peoples in developing countries around the Internet. >> >> The document lists the following Internet governance process principles: multistakeholder governance; open, participative, consensus driven governance; transparent process; accountable ; inclusive and equitable; distributed, collaborative and enabling meaningful participation, access and low barriers. >> >> One of the most contentious negotiations was around the principle on multistakeholder and decision-making. Regarding the multistakeholder issue, the document states that “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.” >> >> The draft text stated: “… with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users in their respective roles and responsibilities”. >> >> This language on multistakeholders came under criticism form civil society groups. The Just Net Coalition stated, “The document fails to mention the word ‘democracy’ at all - and instead talks only about the multistakeholder model and governance on the basis of consensus. This, even though such systems have failed in protecting the global citizens from drag-net surveillance, the threat of cyber war and the emergence of global monopolies. Such a model also completely ignores the concept of public interest in Internet governance”. >> >> Use of the words “democratic multistakeholder process” to ensure “meaningful and accountable participation” is viewed as a reflection of concerns expressed by governments like India and civil society organizations like Just Net Coalition. In its statement on 21 April, Just Net Coalition demanded “a democratic and multistakeholder Internet governance model with different roles and responsibilities, recognizing that corporations and governments cannot be placed on an equal footing in governing the Internet”. >> >> Regarding decision-making it clearly states, “Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent possible”. Thus it rejects to a limited extent the demands of the private sector for an equal footing treatment in decision-making. >> >> The current Internet governance mechanism facilitated the corporate capture especially by US-based corporations to further their commercial interest, opposing any change in the governance mechanism that now sees an unholy alliance with the transnational corporate sector. >> >> Interestingly, the document clearly embraces intellectual property (IP) especially copyright protection, and makes freedom of information and access to information in compliance with copyright law. The human rights principle on freedom of information and access to information states: “Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. Thus the document makes the freedom of information on the Internet consistent with copyright protection, an IP maximalist position. >> >> The footprint of the IP lobby is also visible in the principle related to protection of intermediaries. It states: “Intermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects and promotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In this regard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address and deter illegal activity, consistent with fair process.” The words “all stakeholders” include the copyright industry. Further it is also pointed out that the words “cooperation among all stakeholders” promotes the private enforcement of IP rights including copyright. >> >> The second part of the document sets out the roadmap, which contains five sections. The first section identifies issues that deserve the attention of all stakeholders in the future evolution of Internet governance. There are eight identified issues and these issues are: >> >> “1. Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in different issues. >> >> 2. Enhanced cooperation as referred to in the Tunis Agenda to address international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be implemented on a priority and consensual basis. Taking into consideration the efforts of the CSTD (UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development) working group on enhanced cooperation, it is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this discussion in a multistakeholder fashion. >> >> 3. Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms. >> >> 4. There is a need to develop multistakeholder mechanisms at the national level owing to the fact that a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled at this level. National multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is essential. >> >> 5. There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries. >> >> 6. Enabling capacity building and empowerment through such measures such as remote participation and adequate funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance. >> >> 7. All stakeholders should renew their commitment to build a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society as defined by the WSIS outcome documents. Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance ecosystem, the focus on development should be retained. >> >> 8. Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communication and coordination between technical and non-technical communities, providing a better understanding about the policy implications in technical decisions and technical implications in policy decision-making.” >> >> The second section of the roadmap deals with institutional improvements. The outcome document recognizes the recommendation of the UN CSTD for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It also contains the following points for the improvement of IGF, which include: (a) Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; (b) Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; (c) Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; (d) The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >> >> Further, the document expresses the hope that “A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” >> >> The document also identified reform of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN) as an institutional improvement. It states: >> >> “In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of [the] US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. >> >> The IANA functions are currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to discuss the adequate relation between the policy and operational aspects. >> >> This transition should be conducted thoughtfully with a focus on maintaining the security and stability of the Internet, empowering the principle of equal participation among all stakeholder groups and striving towards a completed transition by September 2015. >> >> It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community. >> >> The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization”. >> >> The third section lists security and stability as issues on specific Internet Governance topics, stating the following: >> >> “a. It is necessary to strengthen international cooperation on topics such as jurisdiction and law enforcement assistance to promote cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks should be held in a multistakeholder manner. >> >> b. Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security threats should involve appropriate collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, academia and technical community. There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators and software developers. >> >> c. There is room for new forums and initiatives. However, they should not duplicate, but add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity organizations.” >> >> On mass surveillance it states “Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Collection and processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects.” >> >> The fourth section of the roadmap identifies the following issues for future deliberations: Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance, including the meaning and application of equal footing; Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance; Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of Internet governance principles; and Net neutrality. >> >> An observer expressed concern about the process of the NETmundial negotiations, which allowed the negotiation of the outcome document within a multistakeholder framework and replacing the exclusive negotiations among governments. Supporters of multistakeholder processes already started projecting it as the ideal negotiation format for future negotiations on Internet governance. >> >> The President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff in her inaugural address stated that the idea of the NETmundial is to “lend a new momentum to the ongoing discussions in a much needed sense of urgency”. >> >> She said “The first such premise is that we all want to protect the Internet as a democratic space, available to end use by all, as a shared asset, and as such, truly heritage of humankind, more than simply a work tool and way beyond its well‐known contribution for economic growth, provided, of course, that it be increasingly inclusive. The second premise or assumption is the desire we all share to incorporate an increasingly broader audience into this process. May I remind all ladies and gentlemen and friends attending this session that Brazil advocates that Internet governance should be multisectoral, multilateral, democratic, and transparent in nature”. >> >> On the dominance of the US role in the current Internet governance mechanism she said, “I also attach a great deal of importance to the multilateral perspective, according to which government participation should occur on an equal footing among governments in such a way as to ensure that no country will have or bear greater weight vis‐a‐vis other countries”. >> >> She further said: “Our advocacy of the multilateral model is the natural consequence of an elementary principle that should govern today's international relations as enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution. I'm talking about equality among states. We, therefore, see no opposition whatsoever between multi‐‐‐or the multilateral and the multisectoral nature of the Internet. Actually, the opposite of that would be a one‐sided unilateral Internet which is untenable”. >> >> She clearly stated “multisectoral arrangements that are, in turn, subject to oversight by one or few states are not acceptable either”.+ >> >> >> ITEM 2 >> >> Just Net Coalition Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document >> Document: http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document >> >> The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed by different actors in the future. >> >> For the Just Net Coalition, “democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance” means democratic processes with clear guidelines for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not favour the “equal-footing multi-stakeholder model” and thus a clear departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. >> >> While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. >> >> We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. >> >> In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed norms, such as happened at NetMundial. >> >> The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed “in the public interest”. While falling short of the civil society demand for characterizing the Internet as a “global commons” or “public good”, it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says that the Internet is “a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda”. >> >> We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. >> >> The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic multi-stakeholder model >> >> President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final outcome document in the roadmap section accepts “the full involvement of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities” and is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. >> >> The outcome document has further held, “Governments have primary, legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights”. The NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing these new openings will involve clear definitions and guidelines for the “democratic multistakeholder process” model. >> >> NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalizing multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of “multistakeholderism in practice” included the seemingly open format of “selecting” the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positio n s were flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which ultimately only works for the few? >> >> In this regard, we see the reference to “democratic multistakeholder processes” in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now need to spell out what would constitute “democratic multistakeholder processes”. This of course includes the NetMundial call for further discussions on “different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance” and its two references to “respective roles and responsibilities”. This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration of what is a “democratic multistakeholder process” where, of course, corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions regarding public policy issues. >> >> The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens they represent. >> >> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. >> >> Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory >> >> We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. >> >> Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. >> >> In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. >> >> Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. Marco Civil – the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to bury net neutrality in the “Future Plans” section of the NetMundial outcome document. >> >> Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not validly part of it: >> >> First, while references to the “right to access, share, create and distribute information” exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is limited to what is “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. The right to share and communicate has now been circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made legal. >> >> Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet users, has now been coupled with “private policing” for enforcing Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging “cooperation among all stakeholders” in order to “address and deter illegal activity” which is in fact, well understood as coded language for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries. >> >> It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. >> >> Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet and the digital economy. >> >> Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the “open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community� � for “discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends.” >> >> Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) >> May 3, 2014 >> http://JustNetCoalition.org >> >> (1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that “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....”. >> >> (2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). >> >> (3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with the US government. >> >> - end - >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved >> To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE! >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed May 7 09:57:35 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:57:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] "democratic multistakeholderism" (was Re: Roles and Responsibilities...) In-Reply-To: <20140506102609.17864714@quill> References: <11815376.1399351101703.JavaMail.root@mail> <20140506102609.17864714@quill> Message-ID: At 10:26 06/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Freedom of communication (which I understand as including press freedom) You raise key issues I would like to see addressed in an coherent manner. This calls for two remarks: 1. YES, this includes press freedom. Telepresse.com is a 16 years old Libre press inititative working on an MS process (on-line newspaper room) basis which has so far only suffered one problem: with /1NET. I analyze the reason why as being a lack of acceptance of a non-centric MS process. This lack of acceptance is interesting to try to understand what are each of the various motivations. > is a human right that is endangered when the executive branch of > government is overly powerful, but which will not be adversely > affected when the ability of the state to make effective public > policy decisions is weakened. 2. I would phrase this slightly differently: "which will be adversely not directly but more durably affected" since one of the primary public policy responsibility is to protect the freedom of the press, what the ICANN /1NET process was unable to insure. >Hence we should not look through this lense only when trying to figure >out how much and what power and influence on Internet related public >policy decisions is appropriate to entrust to purely state based >processes as opposed to entrusting it to multistakeholder processes. > >I would propose that the term "democratic multistakeholderism" should >not be used as simply a buzzword, but rather we need to think carefully >and precisely about what it takes for governance processes to merit the >attribute "democratic". 3. You will excuse me, but "democratic multistakeholderism" is an antilogy for me. Multistakeholderism is a governance proposition to replace democracy when it cannot apply due to the lack of the necessary common government, i.e. the lack of the form of governance democracy is about. This is why the MSism process is to be qualified by the "on an equal footing basis" as this is not mandatory. This is why the issue is not a MultiStakeholderism everyone agrees (worded "concertation" in French and in EU English), it is the "equal footing". This is because "equal footing" may be considered from two main points of view: - the process includes everyone considered as equal. - the porcess is to be executed between peers. Centuries of considerations of this problem has led to the emergence of the subsidiarity/substitution solution through capabality considerations: an equal footing is on the lowest/nearest capable basis between potentia and potestas (fr.: puissance et pouvoir) two words that are unfortunately translated by the same English term: "power". The potentia-puissance power comes from the multitude, the potestats-pouvoir power comes from the people. The difference between multitude and people is that the people is a crowd tied by a social contract while the multitude is a boundless crowd. Democracy is a way to execute a social contract (others are monocracy [monarchy, tyrany], diktyocracy [oligarchy]) so it is reserved to common accepted destiny communities. There are two ways to deal with multitudes: (1) to try to break it down into communities through a common interest in something being used to replace the missing social contract. This is the RFC 6852 concept of "global communities" which determine technology. The Android, Windows, Apple, Firefox apps users and ICANN global communities. Google is fighting for the rights of the Google's consumers, etc. All of them compete to enlarge their global communities. And to oppose new commers to forge new communities such as the IUsers. (2) to adopt a polycratic (what ever it may mean at this stage) governance to be the way to govern a multitude without social contract, in order to obtain for each involved person a democratic equivalent feeling. I am a seaman. There is a strict social hierarchical contract on a ship, but there is none within shipping and none with time while ships sail 24/366. This is equivalent in planes and cars (except that they run for shorter periods of time which may not require a driver/pilot switch). What do we observe at sea? - on board, people are not considered as persons, but as abilities (cf. "able seaman" initial level) at a given time and context (stations). Everyone knows which are the stakeholders in each MS process and how many of them are concerned depending on circonstances, but not necessarily who mann them. - there are three ways for ships to behave: -- in fleet under the monocratic decision of an Admiral. -- in convoy where the comodore democratically consults the commanding officers on the route to follow. -- in freedom of manoeuvre, everyone polycratically chose her own route and adapt to avoid collisions (whatever the size of the other ship) or benefit from the weather Whatever the way they are steered, the result is a multitude of ships with inter- and intra- or no- group governance (what amounts to no common contract and governance). Yet there are laws of the sea: saes are a governed area. My conclusion is that an MS process, that would work in a multitude, should be on an *equal equivalent entity* basis based on the general common potentia/potestas - puissance/pouvoir (power/power) balance. Potestas/Pouvoir/powers (institutional, commercial or inlfuencial) domination being balanced by the counter-power of the potentia, puissance, power of response of the multitude's nastyness (wars, revolutions, strikes, riots, oppositions, hacks, DoS, trolls, misunderstandings [genuine or not], etc.). The risk is that both "sides" sharpen their solutions. Also on the multitude's cooperation (FLOSS, monthly charges, e-commerce purchases, etc.). My suggestion is therefore to work out a stakeholder responsibility oriented "multiquette" for MS process based governance systems using the needs and experience of the IGF. I am initiating a project study within my VGN experimentation framework, toward a local/relational polycratic system (in French: everyone welcome to participate, let me know). 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 May 7 12:09:05 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 17:09:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] The future of the Internet, courtesy of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <081f01cf6a0e$ac367450$04a35cf0$@gmail.com> The NetMundial document talked about the Internet and the “public interest”. This below is a small part of what it might start to look like at least in the US where notions of the “public interest” have eroded so far that they need to look back over 100 years to find an effective foundation. M From: oia-bounces at lists.bway.net [mailto:oia-bounces at lists.bway.net] On Behalf Of Dana Spiegel Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 3:02 PM To: Bruce Kushnick Subject: [OIA] The future of the Internet, courtesy of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt PandoDaily The future of the Internet, courtesy of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt rooseveltz In the midst of all the recent talk about Net Neutrality – and with it peering agreements between Internet service providers, content providers, and upstream network operators – lies a stark and disappointing truth: the US telecommunications infrastructure is woefully out of date. If the “last mile” of the internet were converted to fiber optic cable, the overwhelming popularity of streaming services like Netflix and Youtube wouldn’t be a problem at all. This may be utopian thinking, but there is reason to believe the upfront cost of such a build out could be a sound investment. A report released today by Standard & Poor’s details the net economic benefits of infrastructure projects, concluding that they routinely outweigh short-term costs. While the report focused specifically on highway construction, its author, Beth Ann Bovino, told Pando this morning that the “fiscal multiplier effect should hold true for other types of infrastructure improvement as well.” As one looks across the country for a way forward, there are two names that jump from the pages of history to weigh in, and they both end in Roosevelt. First, Franklin Delano. He was the driving force behind the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which created the FCC as a single regulatory body with the power to regulate all industry related to communication by wire, radio, telephone, and broadcast traveling across state lines. Though the Act was amended by the subsequent Telecommunications Act of 1996 to more clearly define the way the Internet is regulated, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has faced recent pressure to classify ISP’s as “common carriers,” a power granted him by the 1934 law and upheld by a federal court this January. Such a classification would give the FCC more leeway in regulating the economics of Internet service provision and place a higher burden of compliance on ISP’s. Interestingly, the “common carrier” designation is based on earlier antitrust laws that written to regulate steamships and railroads. And then there is Tennessee. The state currently boasts eight municipalities with publicly owned, ultra-high-speed broadband service. By way of contrast, Google Fiber has connected two cities with such service, and is at work on a third. Tennessee has a significant head start – all thanks to FDR and the New Deal. The Tennessee Valley Authority was conceived at the same time as FDR was laying the groundwork for the FCC. The TVA was originally created to spur economic development by, among other things, generating and distributing hydroelectric power throughout the state and building the power grid. The legacy of that action has allowed cities such as Chattanooga and Clarksville to construct and finance fiber-optic networks that connect directly to the home, a holy grail for “last mile” infrastructure improvements, beating nationwide incumbent providers like Comcast and AT&T to the punch and chiseling deep into their market shares in the TVA zone. The build out of these fiber grids began in the ‘90s when municipal electricity companies made “smart grid” upgrades to their existing power systems, and their expansion was funded through revenues from the electricity side of the business. Now those internal loans are being paid back and the excess revenues from the communications side are subsidizing rates for electricity. For major private sector ISP’s like Comcast and AT&T, infrastructure improvements can be a tough sell to shareholders because they require hefty upfront costs. And there have been several cases in the US where these incumbents have been accused of delaying upgrades in order to improve their bargaining positions with higher-tier network operators. Level 3, one such operator, detailed this situation today in a blog post on their site, writing: [Level 3 has] six peers with congestion on almost all of the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content. Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers. The other Roosevelt who may be soon be due for recognition as an Internet pioneer is Teddy, as a 1902 statute from Washington D.C. has recently been getting a lot of attention from publicly-owned broadband advocates in that city. The obscure law from deep within the city’s public utilities code requires that any conduit (at the time of its writing, this reference was to telephone wires) that is laid in District of Columbia must build in extra space for government-owned wires. Originally, this public wiring was intended for the limited purposes of “fire alarm and police patrol”, but this language was changed in 2005 to read “for purposes related exclusively to the government and public safety.” Sources in the DC city government say that this law is receiving a good long look by those who favor building a municipally-owned fiber grid there, though details of talks have yet to emerge. No major US city has yet established a publicly-owned broadband network, though Seattle, Chicago and Portland,OR, have explored the idea. As our government considers the future of internet regulation It’s important to remember that, although the technology in question is new, the business practices that have grown up around it are not. The 20th Century has a lot of guidance to offer those who hope to see the US bring its communications infrastructure up to 21st Century standards. We’ve seen the level of service degraded when it’s all about the Benjamins. Now maybe its time to give the Roosevelts a shot. [illustration by Brad Jonas for Pando] http://pandodaily.com.feedsportal.com/c/35141/f/650422/s/3a21a948/sc/46/l/0Lpando0N0C20A140C0A50C0A60Cthe0Efuture0Eof0Ethe0Einternet0Ecourtesy0Eof0Eteddy0Eand0Efranklin0Eroosevelt0C/story01.htm Sent with Reeder -- Dana Spiegel Chief Code Therapist, FounderTherapy dana at foundertherapy.co www.foundertherapy.co We help founders turn great ideas into delightful products that users love. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 7 12:32:14 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 18:32:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] "democratic multistakeholderism" (was Re: Roles and Responsibilities...) In-Reply-To: References: <11815376.1399351101703.JavaMail.root@mail> <20140506102609.17864714@quill> Message-ID: <20140507183214.65cffe4f@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: At 10:26 06/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > is a human right that is endangered when the executive branch of > > government is overly powerful, but which will not be adversely > > affected when the ability of the state to make effective public > > policy decisions is weakened. > > 2. I would phrase this slightly differently: "which will be adversely > not directly but more durably affected" since one of the primary > public policy responsibility is to protect the freedom of the press, Yup, you're right, your statement is more accurate. > >I would propose that the term "democratic multistakeholderism" should > >not be used as simply a buzzword, but rather we need to think > >carefully and precisely about what it takes for governance processes > >to merit the attribute "democratic". > > 3. You will excuse me, but "democratic multistakeholderism" is an > antilogy for me. Multistakeholderism is a governance proposition to > replace democracy when it cannot apply due to the lack of the > necessary common government, i.e. the lack of the form of governance > democracy is about. I think we're not disagreeing substantively on this point, rather I'm just using the term “multistakeholderism” in a broader sense than you are using it; in fact I'm stretching this term so broadly and widely that it also encompasses possibilities of using multistakeholder processes in ways that are in fact part of a democratic framework. The country where I live, Switzerland, has a long tradition in this regard which in fact by a long time predates “multistakeholder” becoming a buzzword. I mean processes like the following: When “net neutrality” became a topic in parliament, the first thing that the Swiss government did was set up a “working group” with a reasonably well balanced composition (someone from the Swiss government is chairing the group, and there is someone representing the Swiss chapter of ISOC, and some industry representatives, and some representatives of civil society groups that have been significantly active on Internet topics). This “working group” is tasked with discussing the issue and trying to agree on a report, which will thereafter be used by the government to provide input to the parliament based legislative process in the context of an upcoming revision of telecommunications law. I don't see anything contrary to democracy in this process. That “working group” is not officially called a “multistakeholder” group, but the composition of the group looks pretty reasonably multistakeholder to me. I certainly see nothing objectionable in asking industry representatives to provide input on potential regulation that would affect them, provided that the process is reasonably transparent and that the government does a good job in inviting the various civil society groups which reasonably should be there, and also a good balance between the various different industry interests. Hence I think that the type of process that I described above is one of “democratic multistakeholderism”. Now I personally strongly prefer open-participation processes such as those used in IETF. Furthermore, at the international level I don't see any reasonable alternative to using open-participation processes, since at the international level I see no trustworthy equivalent to the Swiss government with its tradition of selecting and conducting “working groups” in a usually reasonably balanced and fair manner. (Certainly I wasn't very impressed by the committee and co-chair selection processes for NetMundial.) I believe that even for inherently global issues the actual decision-making in regard to choosing between policy options can be done by national parliaments, but working out a reasonable set of policy options to choose from should absolutely be coordinated in an international multistakeholder process or set of such processes. This kind of model that I'm proposing (again, details are at http://wisdontaskforce.org/ ) is also something that I would suggest falls into the category of “democratic multistakeholderism”. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 7 23:42:26 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 00:42:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BNewsletter=5D_Digital_Rights=3A_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Latin_Am=C3=A9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=2E_N=C2=B010?= In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> Message-ID: Sorry for the cross-posting. You will find below the 10th issue of the newsletter Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean. The goal of this monthly publication is to produce news and analysis about Internet related policies and regulation in the LAC region. All articles are translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese. The newsletter is a joint project from Asociación Derechos Civiles (Argentina), Derechos Digitales (Chile), CTS/FGV (Brazil) and Fundación Karisma (Colombia). Website: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en Subscribe: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/suscripcion/ Best, Marília Here you will find monthly analysis and information about the state of digital rights in Latin American and the Caribbean. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.. WELCOME As a notable feature of this tenth edition we will have an interesting analysis of the recent report on Freedom of Expression and the Internet published by the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). In parallel, our brothers in Colombia tell us about the long-awaited presidential approval of the law on access to public information in the month of March while in Brazil the debate focuses on outlining an agenda that can shape a law on protection of personal data to ensure minimum standards of privacy protection. We will also find the controversial case of The Telecommunications Act in Mexico and debates about its process of discussion and an interesting reflection on the practical implications regarding the exemption of visa for Chilean citizens which stems from an agreement for exchanging information signed between the two governments. And of course, news, events and various recommended contents in *"Digital Rights: Latin America and The Caribbean"* Newsletter. Good reading! A Key Tool in the Struggle for a Free Internet The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published the report Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This report probably constitutes the main legal and constitutional tool to advance the struggle for a free and open Internet in the Americas. Read more . Is the automatic visa for entering the United States a cause for celebration? >From April onwards it will be possible to travel as a tourist from Chile to the USA without having a visa. Although this agreement was considered by the former Chilean government as a triumph, the cost for granting this “privilege”, for the enjoyment of a minority, will be paid off with the personal data of all Chileans. Read more . The low involvement of civil society in the Telecommunications Act in Mexico The Telecommunications Act has been controversial not only because it damages freedom of expression on the Internet, but also because throughout the process of its discussion, the contributions of civil society have been minimal. What will happen to public interest in this legislation under these conditions? Read more . Personal data: awaiting a text Very few people remember this, but in 2010 Brazil began the process of creating a specific law for the protection of personal data. Part of this lack of awareness can be attributed to the federal government itself, which for a long time stalled the initiative to create a new legal text, but it can also be due to the fact that our culture is permissive of the evasion of personal information. But the maturing of the Marco Civil da Internet into a law opens the door for privacy to occupy a central role in the country’s digital politics agenda. Read more . Access to Information Act in Colombia, A Citizen Achievement On March 6, 2014 the President of Colombia approved the Access to Public Information Act. This norm contains a number of international standards on this fundamental right and stems from an initiative of the civil society alliance, More Information More Rights. Read more . Latest news in the region *LATAM: Office Of The Special Rapporteur Presents Its 2013 Annual Report with some proposals on Internet* More information *The approval of the Marco Civil da Internet* More information in P ortuguese *Chile: Under secretary Pedro Huichalaf advocates net neutrality in NETmundial conference * More information in Spanish *Mexico will not block internet and telecommunications * More information in Spanish *U.S: United States created a "Cuban Twitter" to attack Castro's Government * More information in Spanish *Colombia: Second commission will follow up the PUMA system* More information in Spanish *Constitutional court repealed law that originated Pacific Alliance* More information in Spanish *Events* - NETmundial: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance 23rd & 24th April | São Paulo, Brazil - "Free and Secure Internet For All" 28th & 29th April | Tallinn, Estonia. - FLISOL Cartagena 10th May | Fundación Universitaria Tecnológico Comfenalco ------------------------------ FLISOL Bogotá 10th May | IDRD *Documents* Mobile internet: Challenges and opportunities for Civil Society - Carlos Cortés Castillo | Spanish - Intelectual property is theft Strangers In A Tangled Wilderness | English - NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement NETmundial | English - 2013 Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression IACHR | English This newsletter was made by: [image: ADEC] [image: Derechos Digitales] Share this on Facebook | Twitt this | Forward this Creative Commons BY-SA *2014 Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean, *Some rights reserved*.* You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean. *Our mailing address is:* Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2 Santiago 8330026 Chile Add us to your address book [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] unsubscribe from this list| update subscription preferences -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 8 04:44:45 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 10:44:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Data References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642276@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Thu May 8 06:46:16 2014 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:46:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] EU rejects international solution to library and archive copyright problems; causes collapse of WIPO meeting Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C5C7F3@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear Colleagues I thought you might be interested in some of the problems libraries and archives experienced at the World Intellectual Property Organisation last week regarding access to digital content. It was quite a scene. http://www.ifla.org/node/8600 Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Another document was also introduced by the US at this meeting which talks about how licensing is a principle of access to educational resources. For those of us who work in education/academia, I would suggest that there is a fair bit to worry about in this document. I'd be happy to share it as soon as I get an electronic copy. Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From deborah at accessnow.org Thu May 8 10:36:04 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:36:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] EU rejects international solution to library and archive copyright problems; causes collapse of WIPO meeting In-Reply-To: <536B68ED.7010508@apc.org> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C5C7F3@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <536B68ED.7010508@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Stuart, all, Thanks very much for this update and very sorry to hear this news. Just to add to Anriette's last point about the HRC, the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights has identified "the impact of intellectual property regimes on the enjoyment of right to science and culture" as her issue of focus this year. She is conducting a public consultation in June, more info hereand attached. All the best, Deborah On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Stuart > > I am so sorry to hear this. I know how hard many of you have been working > in WIPO to find solutions to the many ways in which trends in copyright > enforcement is limiting access to knowledge in general, and the role of > libraries in providing information in particular. > > If there is anything we can do to help let us know. For now I propose you > try and introduce this into the discussion at CSTD. Also push this concern > in the post-2015 development agenda, as you have already started to do, and > raise it in the IGF. > > APC is also exploring ways in which we can take this issue to the Human > Rights Council. > > Anriette > > > > On 08/05/2014 12:46, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > I thought you might be interested in some of the problems libraries and archives experienced at the World Intellectual Property Organisation last week regarding access to digital content. It was quite a scene. > http://www.ifla.org/node/8600 > > Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > Another document was also introduced by the US at this meeting which talks about how licensing is a principle of access to educational resources. For those of us who work in education/academia, I would suggest that there is a fair bit to worry about in this document. I'd be happy to share it as soon as I get an electronic copy. > > Kind regards, > > Stuart > > > Stuart Hamilton > Director of Policy and Advocacy > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoteVerbaleEN.doc Type: application/msword Size: 114176 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 8 10:53:14 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:53:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_Fwd=3A_=5BNewsle?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?tter=5D_Digital_Rights=3A_Latin_Am=E9rica_=26_The_Caribbea?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?n=2E_N=B010?= In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> Message-ID: <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> This is great, thank you! On 2014-05-07, at 11:42 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for the cross-posting. > You will find below the 10th issue of the newsletter Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean. The goal of this monthly publication is to produce news and analysis about Internet related policies and regulation in the LAC region. All articles are translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese. > > The newsletter is a joint project from Asociación Derechos Civiles (Argentina), Derechos Digitales (Chile), CTS/FGV (Brazil) and Fundación Karisma (Colombia). > > Website: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > Subscribe: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/suscripcion/ > > Best, > Marília > > Here you will find monthly analysis and information about the state of digital rights in Latin American and the Caribbean. > Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.. > > WELCOME > As a notable feature of this tenth edition we will have an interesting analysis of the recent report on Freedom of Expression and the Internet published by the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). In parallel, our brothers in Colombia tell us about the long-awaited presidential approval of the law on access to public information in the month of March while in Brazil the debate focuses on outlining an agenda that can shape a law on protection of personal data to ensure minimum standards of privacy protection. We will also find the controversial case of The Telecommunications Act in Mexico and debates about its process of discussion and an interesting reflection on the practical implications regarding the exemption of visa for Chilean citizens which stems from an agreement for exchanging information signed between the two governments. And of course, news, events and various recommended contents in "Digital Rights: Latin America and The Caribbean" Newsletter. Good reading! > > A Key Tool in the Struggle for a Free Internet > The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published the report Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This report probably constitutes the main legal and constitutional tool to advance the struggle for a free and open Internet in the Americas. Read more. > > Is the automatic visa for entering the United States a cause for celebration? > > From April onwards it will be possible to travel as a tourist from Chile to the USA without having a visa. Although this agreement was considered by the former Chilean government as a triumph, the cost for granting this “privilege”, for the enjoyment of a minority, will be paid off with the personal data of all Chileans. Read more. > > The low involvement of civil society in the Telecommunications Act in Mexico > > The Telecommunications Act has been controversial not only because it damages freedom of expression on the Internet, but also because throughout the process of its discussion, the contributions of civil society have been minimal. What will happen to public interest in this legislation under these conditions? Read more. > Personal data: awaiting a text > > Very few people remember this, but in 2010 Brazil began the process of creating a specific law for the protection of personal data. Part of this lack of awareness can be attributed to the federal government itself, which for a long time stalled the initiative to create a new legal text, but it can also be due to the fact that our culture is permissive of the evasion of personal information. But the maturing of the Marco Civil da Internet into a law opens the door for privacy to occupy a central role in the country’s digital politics agenda. Read more. > Access to Information Act in Colombia, A Citizen Achievement > > On March 6, 2014 the President of Colombia approved the Access to Public Information Act. This norm contains a number of international standards on this fundamental right and stems from an initiative of the civil society alliance, More Information More Rights. Read more. > > Latest news in the region > > > LATAM: Office Of The Special Rapporteur Presents Its 2013 Annual Report with some proposals on Internet > More information > The approval of the Marco Civil da Internet > More information in Portuguese > Chile: Under secretary Pedro Huichalaf advocates net neutrality in NETmundial conference > More information in Spanish > Mexico will not block internet and telecommunications > More information in Spanish > U.S: United States created a "Cuban Twitter" to attack Castro's Government > More information in Spanish > Colombia: Second commission will follow up the PUMA system > More information in Spanish > Constitutional court repealed law that originated Pacific Alliance > More information in Spanish > > Events > > NETmundial: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > 23rd & 24th April | São Paulo, Brazil > "Free and Secure Internet For All" > 28th & 29th April | Tallinn, Estonia. > FLISOL Cartagena > 10th May | Fundación Universitaria Tecnológico Comfenalco > FLISOL Bogotá > 10th May | IDRD > > Documents > Mobile internet: Challenges and opportunities for Civil Society > Carlos Cortés Castillo | Spanish > Intelectual property is theft > Strangers In A Tangled Wilderness | English > NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement > NETmundial | English > 2013 Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression > IACHR | English > This newsletter was made by: > > > Share this on Facebook | Twitt this | Forward this > > > Creative Commons BY-SA 2014 Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean, Some rights reserved. > > You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean. > > Our mailing address is: > Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean > Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2 > Santiago 8330026 > Chile > > Add us to your address book > > > unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences > > > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Fri May 9 10:28:30 2014 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (divina.meigs) Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 16:28:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] collapse of WIPO meeting Message-ID: Dear Stuart Thank you for alerting us on this stalemate situation. IFLA has been doing an excellent job at sensitizing the community at large about the need to allow libraries to proceed with their missions in the digital age. I am appalled (though not really astonished) to see that there is such resistance, in the era of MOOCs and other Learning Data tools. I hope we can come up with a solution and viable alternatives. Please let me know if you think the case could be put to the first forum on Media and Information Literacy that will be held in Unesco Paris on 27-28th May. best Divina Frau-Meigs Professeur, sociologue des médias, ANR TRANSLIT Directrice CLEMI, Directrice CREW EA 4399 Chaire UNESCO « savoir devenir dans le développement numérique durable » Le 08/05/2014 12:46, « Stuart Hamilton » a écrit : >Dear Colleagues > >I thought you might be interested in some of the problems libraries and >archives experienced at the World Intellectual Property Organisation last >week regarding access to digital content. It was quite a scene. > >http://www.ifla.org/node/8600 > >Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > >Another document was also introduced by the US at this meeting which >talks about how licensing is a principle of access to educational >resources. For those of us who work in education/academia, I would >suggest that there is a fair bit to worry about in this document. I'd be >happy to share it as soon as I get an electronic copy. > >Kind regards, > >Stuart > > >Stuart Hamilton >Director of Policy and Advocacy >International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) >P.O. Box 95312 >2509 CH The Hague >Netherlands > >00 31 70 314 0884 > >Twitter: @ifladpa > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Sun May 11 04:42:20 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:42:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 11 12:50:53 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 13:50:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5C97AC8D-190F-4223-86FB-56973435E6E3@cafonso.ca> Great analysis, Wolf! [] fraterno --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 11/05/2014, at 05:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi, > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 11 13:22:02 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:22:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: At 10:42 11/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles >of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ Thank you for this document which is an excellent historical political (but not technical) summary. As a result, I am afraid there are in your text: * an explicit bug: in Towards a Soft Law Approach, point 2: "All parties support the historically grown architectural principles of an open Internet (e2e)" * an implicit bug: there is no mention of the ICANN/NETIA strategic BUG (wanting to be unilateral global). The second one is a well known one. The fist one is less known as it is not necessarily technical: it is the confusion many make between the end, edge and fringe. What to you mean by e2e, most probably end to end and not edge to edge. While in reality if the internet service provision is end to end, it use is fringe to fringe, and its problems mostly come from the unballance in consideration brought to the edge providers. Please note that if you consult the well documented wikipedia page on the End to End principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) you will seach "edge" and "fringe" in vain while RFC 1958 (Architectural Principles of the Internet) states that "The network's job is to transmit datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should be done at the fringes" and does not consider edges. IRT. edges, the best definition I found is CISCO's: "The Internet edge is the network infrastructure that provides connectivity to the Internet, and that acts as the gateway for the enterprise to the rest of the cyber space". http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/Internet_Edge/InterEdgeOver.html As long as politicians confuse end, edge, fringe, apps, and brains (where naming roots) we will not be able to work any consensually stable and acceptable solution. This is not because VGNs have not been identified/accepted so far as the main constituant type of the digital system that it is not it. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun May 11 13:22:50 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:52:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <5C97AC8D-190F-4223-86FB-56973435E6E3@cafonso.ca> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5C97AC8D-190F-4223-86FB-56973435E6E3@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Yes, Wolfgang's Analysis is very informative and positive. Perhaps he could write more on the broad history of Internet Governance more. I remember his Talk on the History of Internet Governance at the Summer School, it was well informed, informative history and a fair perspective. This article on CircleID reflects his thorough understanding of the history and challenges. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Great analysis, Wolf! > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > > > On 11/05/2014, at 05:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of > the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > > > wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Sun May 11 14:06:56 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 20:06:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Excellent... Many thanks for those precisions MG Le 11 mai 2014 à 19:22, Jefsey a écrit : > At 10:42 11/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > Thank you for this document which is an excellent historical political (but not technical) summary. As a result, I am afraid there are in your text: > * an explicit bug: in Towards a Soft Law Approach, point 2: "All parties support the historically grown architectural principles of an open Internet (e2e)" > * an implicit bug: there is no mention of the ICANN/NETIA strategic BUG (wanting to be unilateral global). > > The second one is a well known one. The fist one is less known as it is not necessarily technical: it is the confusion many make between the end, edge and fringe. What to you mean by e2e, most probably end to end and not edge to edge. While in reality if the internet service provision is end to end, it use is fringe to fringe, and its problems mostly come from the unballance in consideration brought to the edge providers. > > Please note that if you consult the well documented wikipedia page on the End to End principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) you will seach "edge" and "fringe" in vain while RFC 1958 (Architectural Principles of the Internet) states that "The network's job is to transmit datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should be done at the fringes" and does not consider edges. > > IRT. edges, the best definition I found is CISCO's: "The Internet edge is the network infrastructure that provides connectivity to the Internet, and that acts as the gateway for the enterprise to the rest of the cyber space". http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/Internet_Edge/InterEdgeOver.html > > As long as politicians confuse end, edge, fringe, apps, and brains (where naming roots) we will not be able to work any consensually stable and acceptable solution. This is not because VGNs have not been identified/accepted so far as the main constituant type of the digital system that it is not it. > > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Sun May 11 14:15:59 2014 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 21:15:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Dear Wolfang, Thousand of thanks for excellent summary! On 16 May we will have our round table at Ukrainian Parliament, devoted to the Information Society Day. Can we translate your article into Russian and share it at our round table? We missed you in Sao-Paolo (as well as in Singapore)! Best regards, Oksana On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Excellent... > Many thanks for those precisions > MG > Le 11 mai 2014 à 19:22, Jefsey a écrit : > > At 10:42 11/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the > NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > > Thank you for this document which is an excellent historical political > (but not technical) summary. As a result, I am afraid there are in your > text: > * an explicit bug: in *Towards a Soft Law Approach*, point 2: "All > parties support the historically grown architectural principles of an open > Internet (e2e)" > * an implicit bug: there is no mention of the ICANN/NETIA strategic BUG > (wanting to be unilateral global). > > The second one is a well known one. The fist one is less known as it is > not necessarily technical: it is the confusion many make between the end, > edge and fringe. What to you mean by e2e, most probably end to end and not > edge to edge. While in reality if the internet service provision is end to > end, it use is fringe to fringe, and its problems mostly come from the > unballance in consideration brought to the edge providers. > > Please note that if you consult the well documented wikipedia page on the > End to End principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) > you will seach "edge" and "fringe" in vain while RFC 1958 (Architectural > Principles of the Internet) states that "The network's job is to transmit > datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should > be done at the fringes" and does not consider edges. > > IRT. edges, the best definition I found is CISCO's: "The Internet edge is > the network infrastructure that provides connectivity to the Internet, and > that acts as the gateway for the enterprise to the rest of the cyber > space". > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/Internet_Edge/InterEdgeOver.html > > As long as politicians confuse end, edge, fringe, apps, and brains (where > naming roots) we will not be able to work any consensually stable and > acceptable solution. This is not because VGNs have not been > identified/accepted so far as the main constituant type of the digital > system that it is not it. > > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun May 11 15:26:11 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 07:26:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, I loved the piece that you wrote on Circle ID. No doubt that it will indeed have far reaching impact on the approach and manner that we engage and how things can be measured up to particularly in terms of calibrating the environment, culture, and how stakeholders engage not only externally but also in day to day operations. As always - much wisdom and insight. With every best wish, Sala On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi, > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the > NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 11 16:59:29 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:59:29 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Yes you can do and see you at EURODIG in Berlin. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Oksana Prykhodko Gesendet: So 11.05.2014 20:15 An: IG Caucus; Marie GEORGES Cc: Jefsey Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO Dear Wolfang, Thousand of thanks for excellent summary! On 16 May we will have our round table at Ukrainian Parliament, devoted to the Information Society Day. Can we translate your article into Russian and share it at our round table? We missed you in Sao-Paolo (as well as in Singapore)! Best regards, Oksana On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Excellent... > Many thanks for those precisions > MG > Le 11 mai 2014 à 19:22, Jefsey a écrit : > > At 10:42 11/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the > NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > > Thank you for this document which is an excellent historical political > (but not technical) summary. As a result, I am afraid there are in your > text: > * an explicit bug: in *Towards a Soft Law Approach*, point 2: "All > parties support the historically grown architectural principles of an open > Internet (e2e)" > * an implicit bug: there is no mention of the ICANN/NETIA strategic BUG > (wanting to be unilateral global). > > The second one is a well known one. The fist one is less known as it is > not necessarily technical: it is the confusion many make between the end, > edge and fringe. What to you mean by e2e, most probably end to end and not > edge to edge. While in reality if the internet service provision is end to > end, it use is fringe to fringe, and its problems mostly come from the > unballance in consideration brought to the edge providers. > > Please note that if you consult the well documented wikipedia page on the > End to End principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) > you will seach "edge" and "fringe" in vain while RFC 1958 (Architectural > Principles of the Internet) states that "The network's job is to transmit > datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should > be done at the fringes" and does not consider edges. > > IRT. edges, the best definition I found is CISCO's: "The Internet edge is > the network infrastructure that provides connectivity to the Internet, and > that acts as the gateway for the enterprise to the rest of the cyber > space". > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/Internet_Edge/InterEdgeOver.html > > As long as politicians confuse end, edge, fringe, apps, and brains (where > naming roots) we will not be able to work any consensually stable and > acceptable solution. This is not because VGNs have not been > identified/accepted so far as the main constituant type of the digital > system that it is not it. > > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun May 11 20:58:39 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 00:58:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> ,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, Just to correct/clarify some historical footnotes...2 dynamic coalitions launched at the 2nd IGF in Rio in 2007, one on a (Bill of) Internet Rights, and one on a Framework for Internet Principles; which we agreed to merge at the 3rd IGF in Hyderabad in 2008. That then carried forward as the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles; from which work began on the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles, or it evolved from the Internet Bill of Rights drafts depending upon ones point of view; accelerating at 4th IGF in Egypt in 2009...and rest is history with Dynamic Coalition's Internet Rights and Principles Charter released in long and short form in 2011. It has evolved since then with a 2nd edition which of course is far from the only such statement; but perhaps was the only one translated into 22 languages way back when. Obviously I agree that progressing from the many dispersed statements into a short summary of (shared) Internet principles is a significant accomplishment of NetMundial. Bravo to all for that accomplishment - however imperfect any of us might find an individual phrase here or there, fact of its existence and broad endorsement is still something to celebrate. Lee PS: Of course if my attempt to clarify historical footnotes adds new errors...please everyone feel free to correct me. I was trying to browse the Hyderabad agenda to refresh my memory but not finding it up ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 4:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Oksana Prykhodko Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO Yes you can do and see you at EURODIG in Berlin. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Oksana Prykhodko Gesendet: So 11.05.2014 20:15 An: IG Caucus; Marie GEORGES Cc: Jefsey Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO Dear Wolfang, Thousand of thanks for excellent summary! On 16 May we will have our round table at Ukrainian Parliament, devoted to the Information Society Day. Can we translate your article into Russian and share it at our round table? We missed you in Sao-Paolo (as well as in Singapore)! Best regards, Oksana On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Excellent... > Many thanks for those precisions > MG > Le 11 mai 2014 à 19:22, Jefsey a écrit : > > At 10:42 11/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the > NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > > Thank you for this document which is an excellent historical political > (but not technical) summary. As a result, I am afraid there are in your > text: > * an explicit bug: in *Towards a Soft Law Approach*, point 2: "All > parties support the historically grown architectural principles of an open > Internet (e2e)" > * an implicit bug: there is no mention of the ICANN/NETIA strategic BUG > (wanting to be unilateral global). > > The second one is a well known one. The fist one is less known as it is > not necessarily technical: it is the confusion many make between the end, > edge and fringe. What to you mean by e2e, most probably end to end and not > edge to edge. While in reality if the internet service provision is end to > end, it use is fringe to fringe, and its problems mostly come from the > unballance in consideration brought to the edge providers. > > Please note that if you consult the well documented wikipedia page on the > End to End principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) > you will seach "edge" and "fringe" in vain while RFC 1958 (Architectural > Principles of the Internet) states that "The network's job is to transmit > datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should > be done at the fringes" and does not consider edges. > > IRT. edges, the best definition I found is CISCO's: "The Internet edge is > the network infrastructure that provides connectivity to the Internet, and > that acts as the gateway for the enterprise to the rest of the cyber > space". > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/Internet_Edge/InterEdgeOver.html > > As long as politicians confuse end, edge, fringe, apps, and brains (where > naming roots) we will not be able to work any consensually stable and > acceptable solution. This is not because VGNs have not been > identified/accepted so far as the main constituant type of the digital > system that it is not it. > > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sun May 11 22:25:19 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 02:25:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B7A24@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Dear Mr Kleinwächter, Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to use the NETmundial text! :-) I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? OPEN STANDARDS Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? Grateful for advice. I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots exist): http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-20140505/000043.html http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] PINGO Hi, here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yesunhoo at gmail.com Mon May 12 00:10:03 2014 From: yesunhoo at gmail.com (Young-eum Lee) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:10:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5C97AC8D-190F-4223-86FB-56973435E6E3@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 ! Yes, Wolfgang's piece helped us understand a much broader picture. Thanks. - Young-eum. Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences , Korea National Open University Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents , KNOU Grad School ICANN ccNSO Council member Chairman, 7th Daum Open User Committee On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Yes, Wolfgang's Analysis is very informative and positive. Perhaps he > could write more on the broad history of Internet Governance more. I > remember his Talk on the History of Internet Governance at the Summer > School, it was well informed, informative history and a fair perspective. > This article on CircleID reflects his thorough understanding of the > history and challenges. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Great analysis, Wolf! >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> sent from a dumbphone >> >> > On 11/05/2014, at 05:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of >> the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >> > >> > >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ >> > >> > wolfgang >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 12 01:27:03 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:27:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> ,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, Another slight correction. The High Level Multistakeholder Committee met in Barcelona on 24 February, not January. The two themes were decided by Brazil: (link dead) "This meeting will focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem." Decisions about the agenda of the meeting and how the two themes would be addressed was decided by the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, meeting of January 27 , the call for contributions was well underway by the time the HLMC had its first meeting. Good article, thank you for it. Adam On May 12, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Wolfgang, > > Just to correct/clarify some historical footnotes...2 dynamic coalitions launched at the 2nd IGF in Rio in 2007, one on a (Bill of) Internet Rights, and one on a Framework for Internet Principles; which we agreed to merge at the 3rd IGF in Hyderabad in 2008. > > That then carried forward as the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles; from which work began on the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles, or it evolved from the Internet Bill of Rights drafts depending upon ones point of view; accelerating at 4th IGF in Egypt in 2009...and rest is history with Dynamic Coalition's Internet Rights and Principles Charter released in long and short form in 2011. > > It has evolved since then with a 2nd edition which of course is far from the only such statement; but perhaps was the only one translated into 22 languages way back when. > > Obviously I agree that progressing from the many dispersed statements into a short summary of (shared) Internet principles is a significant accomplishment of NetMundial. > > Bravo to all for that accomplishment - however imperfect any of us might find an individual phrase here or there, fact of its existence and broad endorsement is still something to celebrate. > > Lee > > PS: Of course if my attempt to clarify historical footnotes adds new errors...please everyone feel free to correct me. I was trying to browse the Hyderabad agenda to refresh my memory but not finding it up > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 4:59 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Oksana Prykhodko > Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO > > Yes you can do and see you at EURODIG in Berlin. > > w > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Oksana Prykhodko > Gesendet: So 11.05.2014 20:15 > An: IG Caucus; Marie GEORGES > Cc: Jefsey > Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO > > Dear Wolfang, > > Thousand of thanks for excellent summary! On 16 May we will have our round > table at Ukrainian Parliament, devoted to the Information Society Day. Can > we translate your article into Russian and share it at our round table? > > We missed you in Sao-Paolo (as well as in Singapore)! > > Best regards, > Oksana > > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >> Excellent... >> Many thanks for those precisions >> MG >> Le 11 mai 2014 à 19:22, Jefsey a écrit : >> >> At 10:42 11/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the >> NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ >> >> >> Thank you for this document which is an excellent historical political >> (but not technical) summary. As a result, I am afraid there are in your >> text: >> * an explicit bug: in *Towards a Soft Law Approach*, point 2: "All >> parties support the historically grown architectural principles of an open >> Internet (e2e)" >> * an implicit bug: there is no mention of the ICANN/NETIA strategic BUG >> (wanting to be unilateral global). >> >> The second one is a well known one. The fist one is less known as it is >> not necessarily technical: it is the confusion many make between the end, >> edge and fringe. What to you mean by e2e, most probably end to end and not >> edge to edge. While in reality if the internet service provision is end to >> end, it use is fringe to fringe, and its problems mostly come from the >> unballance in consideration brought to the edge providers. >> >> Please note that if you consult the well documented wikipedia page on the >> End to End principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) >> you will seach "edge" and "fringe" in vain while RFC 1958 (Architectural >> Principles of the Internet) states that "The network's job is to transmit >> datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should >> be done at the fringes" and does not consider edges. >> >> IRT. edges, the best definition I found is CISCO's: "The Internet edge is >> the network infrastructure that provides connectivity to the Internet, and >> that acts as the gateway for the enterprise to the rest of the cyber >> space". >> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/Internet_Edge/InterEdgeOver.html >> >> As long as politicians confuse end, edge, fringe, apps, and brains (where >> naming roots) we will not be able to work any consensually stable and >> acceptable solution. This is not because VGNs have not been >> identified/accepted so far as the main constituant type of the digital >> system that it is not it. >> >> jfc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon May 12 07:15:33 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:15:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B7A24@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Erik, yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" para. of the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not legally binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build an alternative root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of services to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the checks and baalances are within the system, not in external oversight bodies. And yes it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC culture. It could be a source of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age. Best wishes and thanks for your mail. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON Erik Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO Dear Mr Kleinwächter, Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to use the NETmundial text! :-) I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? OPEN STANDARDS Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? Grateful for advice. I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots exist): http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-20140505/000043.html http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] PINGO Hi, here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 12 10:00:40 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:00:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] European Council on Freedom of Informatio References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142549.pdf Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Mon May 12 11:09:56 2014 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:09:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: European Council on Freedom of Informatio In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thank you very much! Fantastic! On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 5:00 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > FYI > > > http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142549.pdf > > Wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 12 11:32:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:02:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ To quote your paper "And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by the most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, the gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil society organizations." Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial document is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is apart from the fact that a very large number of civil society organisations present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and I can tell you, an even greater number outside oppose it. parminder > > wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 12 11:34:29 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:34:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140512153429.GA5601@hserus.net> I don't see where his comments are orthogonal to yours. parminder [12/05/14 21:02 +0530]: > >On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>Hi, >>here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > >To quote your paper > >"And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by >the most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, >the gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil >society organizations." > >Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial >document is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is >apart from the fact that a very large number of civil society >organisations present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and >I can tell you, an even greater number outside oppose it. > >parminder > >>wolfgang >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 12 11:41:22 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:11:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] European Council on Freedom of Informatio In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5370EBA2.9040405@itforchange.net> On Monday 12 May 2014 07:30 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > FYI > > http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142549.pdf By all means much better and much deeper than the NetMundial outcome doc (on a cursory reading) -- and incidentally not produced with a 'multistakeholder' decision making process where business is able to extracts its multiple pounds of flesh as it did at Sao Paolo... Facts stares us in our face, but we are unwilling to see them. You accept formal institutionalised place for big business on global norms and policy frameworks making table and you have sacrificed the hard earned gains of democracy. Dont be surprised then that business will from now never allow any progressive norms and policy development, while, with its numerous resources keeping chipping at the current progressive norms and policy frameworks as it did at Sao Poalo. Wolfgang, why dont you produce a comparative analysis of this EU normative/ policy framework doc vis a vis the netmundial doc, and then associate it with the respective processes followed for each. parminder > > Wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Mon May 12 12:07:10 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:07:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] For your information and consideration: the EU Parliament Committee LiBe Inquiry on electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens Protecting fundamental rights in a digital age Proceedings, Outcome and Background Documents Message-ID: Dear All, Here attached in "published form" Best to all energies Marie -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UE 2013 2014 LIBE Inquiry on NSA Surveillance.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2491620 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 12 12:39:13 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:39:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> Parminder wrote: > On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles > > of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > To quote your paper > > "And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by > the most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, > the gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil > society organizations." > > Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial > document is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is > apart from the fact that a very large number of civil society > organisations present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and > I can tell you, an even greater number outside oppose it. Here's another claim which I think is misleading and inaccurate, if not manifestly untrue: Wolfgang claims that the NetMundial outcome document was "adopted by rough consensus by all stakeholder groups, with the exception of the governments of Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India". Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon May 12 14:23:02 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 06:23:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] For your information and consideration: the EU Parliament Committee LiBe Inquiry on electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens Protecting fundamental rights in a digital age Proceedings, Outcome and Background Documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <989B117E-B95E-49C3-9504-C976582D118A@gmail.com> Dear Marie, Many thanks for this. I was wondering what the outcome of the Parliamentary Hearing based on the Report so it is good to see the Resolution here. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On May 13, 2014, at 4:07 AM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > > Dear All, > > Here attached in "published form" > Best to all energies > Marie > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 12 14:51:22 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:51:22 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Parminder & Norbert, I can not find in the transcripts any statement - with the exception of the four governments I mentioned in my article - which expressed formal reservations against the document. I know that a number of civil society organisations and also other stakeholders from the private sector, governments and technical community were not satisfied with parts of the document. But to be "not satisfied" is different from "formal reservations/opposition". In a multistakeholder process it is more or less unavoidable that "nobody is satisfied". To reach rough consensus means that there are many parties which did not get what they wanted. Otherwise it would be "full consensus". And it was very obvious that there was no full consensus for the NetMundial outcome document. Nevertheless, the Sao Paulo declaration has a special meaning. Basic elements - as the principles which are very balanced and represent to a high degree civil society values - got the support of the majority of all present stakeholders. This is, as I said, remarkable and new, compared to the previous documents which were limited in scope and support. The "limitations" are also relevant for the very interesting document adopted by the Council of the European Union (this is not the EU Commission and also not the Council of Europe). This is a document supported by the 27 member states of the EU. I have my doubts, whether the 193+ governments of the UN member states would support this document. Net Mundial was not the end of the discussion, in particular with regard to the Roadmap. It is very good that we get now more input into a the roadmap process which will lead us into the year 2020 and beyond. And the new EU council paper is a very substantial input. As a European I would be happy if governments from non-European countries would take this document as inspiration. I also recommend, that non-governmental stakeholders take this EU Council document as a serious contribution, in particular with regard to the respect for human rights. BTW, all EU member states are also members of the OECD and do also support the OECD Principles for Internet Policy making, which were opposed by CISAC (at least two principles). If you compare the two questionable OECD principles with Net Mundial than NetMundial looks much better from a civil society perspective. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 17:32 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ To quote your paper "And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by the most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, the gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil society organizations." Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial document is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is apart from the fact that a very large number of civil society organisations present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and I can tell you, an even greater number outside oppose it. parminder > > wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon May 12 15:19:52 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:19:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> Message-ID: <53711ED8.5020609@acm.org> On 12-May-14 12:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's another claim which I think is misleading and inaccurate, if not > manifestly untrue: Wolfgang claims that the NetMundial outcome document > was "adopted by rough consensus by all stakeholder groups, with the > exception of the governments of Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India". >From my perceptions, having in the room, it is a true statement. Good article with reasonable perceptions. avri (but i don't like the term PINGO, sounds like some kind of NGO.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 12 15:38:12 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:38:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [AFRINIC-announce] AFRINIC and ITU-BDT to solidify collaborative efforts on promoting and facilitating IPv6 deployment throughout Africa In-Reply-To: <83D7DEC3-1341-4D06-84CE-C75B3FB10963@afrinic.net> References: <83D7DEC3-1341-4D06-84CE-C75B3FB10963@afrinic.net> Message-ID: more Enhanced Cooperation! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thuron Vymala Date: Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:43 AM Subject: [AFRINIC-announce] AFRINIC and ITU-BDT to solidify collaborative efforts on promoting and facilitating IPv6 deployment throughout Africa To: announce at afrinic.net The CEO of AFRINIC signs today a Letter of Intent with the ITU-BDT Director Mr Ibrahima Sanou to promote and support IPv6 Deployment throughout Africa Geneva, Switzerland, 12 May 2013 – The International Telecommunication Union today signed a letter of intent with the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) on the promotion of IPv6. The letter of intent seeks to establish a high-level framework of cooperation to carry out a number of activities to improve the implementation of IPv6, through the provision of technical assistance to African countries. “Areas of cooperation include, among others, the development and delivery of joint capacity-building programmes and knowledge sharing,” said Mr Brahima Sanou, Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau (BDT). “Accelerating the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is an important matter for ITU Member States and Sector Members.” “Currently, 99.4 per cent of physical objects that may one day be part of the “Internet of Things” are still unconnected,” explained Mr Sanou. “Moreover, large areas of the world remain unserved or under-served by Internet connections. One of the key technologies that can enable progress in Internet connectivity is IPv6. IPv6 will ensure better and increased connectivity, better access to resources and to knowledge.” "The future of the Internet is on IPv6 and Africa cannot afford to be left behind," said Mr Adiel Akplogan, AFRINIC Chief Executive Officer. "This agreement is an important milestone in AFRINIC's cooperation with ITU. As the Internet is becoming more and more critical to our emerging economies, it is equally critical for our operators, public or private, to safeguard the Internet’s future by building networks that are scalable, resilient and ready to run with the new version of the protocol - IPv6. This is the only way that we can ensure open access and a permission- less innovation capability for the millions of future Internet users coming from our region.” Since its inception AFRINIC has invested heavily in efforts in building human capital. This investment is meant to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to manage the Internet in the African and Indian Ocean region. Conducted under the ambit of capacity building, the programme is supported by AFRINIC’s avowed mission “to support Internet Technology usage and development across the continent”. This means that AFRINIC has made training a central part of its activities. Since 2005 AFRINIC has held almost 100 trainings and workshops in 50 countries around Africa, training more than 2 000 Engineers. Every device connected to the Internet is identified by a unique IP address, used to route the data packets globally across the net. The current addressing system, called IP version 4, or IPv4 was deployed in 1983. However, the depletion of IPv4 addresses has been a concern since the late 1980s, when the Internet started to experience dramatic growth. IPv6 was developed to solve the crisis of IPv4 exhaustion. Future growth of the Internet will require IPv6, with its extremely large address space — it exceeds 340 trillion, trillion, trillion (or 340 undecillion addresses). To give a more tangible idea of the scale, some have compared the number of available IPv6 addresses to the number of grains of sand on the planet. The BDT Director and the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) have initiated a joint project to help developing countries. The two Directors have also established a website that provides information about global activities being undertaken by relevant entities in the Internet community, for example, RIRs, local Internet registries, operator groups, and the Internet Society (ISOC). The letter of intent was signed by Mr Brahima Sanou and Mr Adiel Akplogan at ITU Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Read the full Letter of Intent. For more information please visit our website www.afrinic.net Vymala Thuron Marketing and PR Manager, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5128 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia Skype: vymala.thuron --------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AIS14/AFRINIC20, Djibouti, Djibouti, 25May-6June 2014. _______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 12 15:46:48 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:46:48 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> <53711ED8.5020609@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> PINGO stands for P-rinciples of IN-ternet GO-vernance. It is the better BINGO! w ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 21:19 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO On 12-May-14 12:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's another claim which I think is misleading and inaccurate, if not > manifestly untrue: Wolfgang claims that the NetMundial outcome document > was "adopted by rough consensus by all stakeholder groups, with the > exception of the governments of Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India". >From my perceptions, having in the room, it is a true statement. Good article with reasonable perceptions. avri (but i don't like the term PINGO, sounds like some kind of NGO.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 12 22:18:49 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:18:49 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> <53711ED8.5020609@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <53718109.1070705@cafonso.ca> In Portuguese, "pingo" is "drop" [of a liquid], sometimes used to define something small: a little kid = "um pingo de gente"... From the verb "pingar" (to drip). So the acronym does not sound adequate to us BRs... :) --c.a. On 05/12/2014 04:46 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > PINGO stands for P-rinciples of IN-ternet GO-vernance. It is the better BINGO! > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 21:19 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO > > > > > > On 12-May-14 12:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Here's another claim which I think is misleading and inaccurate, if not >> manifestly untrue: Wolfgang claims that the NetMundial outcome document >> was "adopted by rough consensus by all stakeholder groups, with the >> exception of the governments of Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India". > > >>From my perceptions, having in the room, it is a true statement. > > Good article with reasonable perceptions. > > avri > > (but i don't like the term PINGO, sounds like some kind of NGO.) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 13 04:05:55 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:05:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20140513100555.5f236b8c@quill> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > I can not find in the transcripts any statement - with the exception > of the four governments I mentioned in my article - which expressed > formal reservations against the document. In http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf you can find the following statement: """ NIELS TEN OEVER: We would like to thank the Brazilian government for organizing the global multistakeholder meeting on the future of Internet governance. We, as a diverse group of civil society organizations from around the world, appreciate having been part of the process. However, we are disappointed because the outcome document fails to adequately reflect a number of our key concerns. The lack of acknowledgment of net neutrality at NETmundial is deeply disappointing. Mass surveillance has not been sufficiently denounced as being inconsistent with human rights and the principle of proportionality. And although the addition of language on Internet intermediary liability is welcomed, the final text fails to ensure due process safeguards which could undermine the rights to freedom of expression and right to privacy. We feel that this document has not sufficiently moved us beyond a status quo in terms of the protection of fundamental rights and the balancing of power and influence of different stakeholder groups. Thank you. """ Greetings, Norbert I know that a number of > civil society organisations and also other stakeholders from the > private sector, governments and technical community were not > satisfied with parts of the document. But to be "not satisfied" is > different from "formal reservations/opposition". In a > multistakeholder process it is more or less unavoidable that "nobody > is satisfied". To reach rough consensus means that there are many > parties which did not get what they wanted. Otherwise it would be > "full consensus". And it was very obvious that there was no full > consensus for the NetMundial outcome document. Nevertheless, the Sao > Paulo declaration has a special meaning. Basic elements - as the > principles which are very balanced and represent to a high degree > civil society values - got the support of the majority of all present > stakeholders. This is, as I said, remarkable and new, compared to the > previous documents which were limited in scope and support. The > "limitations" are also relevant for the very interesting document > adopted by the Council of the European Union (this is not the EU > Commission and also not the Council of Europe). This is a document > supported by the 27 member states of the EU. I have my doubts, > whether the 193+ governments of the UN member states would support > this document. Net Mundial was not the end of the discussion, in > particular with regard to the Roadmap. It is very good that we get > now more input into a the roadmap process which will lead us into the > year 2020 and beyond. And the new EU council paper is a very > substantial input. As a European I would be happy if governments from > non-European countries would take this document as inspiration. I > also recommend, that non-governmental stakeholders take this EU > Council document as a serious contribution, in particular with regard > to the respect for human rights. BTW, all EU member states are also > members of the OECD and do also support the OECD Principles for > Internet Policy making, which were opposed by CISAC (at least two > principles). If you compare the two questionable OECD principles with > Net Mundial than NetMundial looks much better from a civil society > perspective. Best wishes wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 17:32 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO > > > > > On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles > > of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > To quote your paper > > "And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by the > most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, the > gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil society > organizations." > > Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial document > is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is apart from > the fact that a very large number of civil society organisations > present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and I can tell > you, an even greater number outside oppose it. > > parminder > > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Tue May 13 06:24:19 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:24:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Paper: Fourth Intern. Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA2014) Message-ID: <00e701cf6e95$8060be40$81223ac0$@unimi.it> [Apologies for multiple sending of this CfP] ############################################################################ Fourth International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis ################################ SIMPDA 2014 ############################### - IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 - - Milano, Italy, November 19th-21th - - Website: http://simpda2014.di.unimi.it/ - # About SIMPDA # With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the symposium will be held in Milan, the city of Expo 2015. # Call for Papers # The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from: http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume hich will be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review. – Topics – Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: - Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods - Data-aware and data-centric approaches - Variability and configuration of process models - Process Mining with Big Data - Process simulation and static analyses - Process data query languages - Process data mining - Privacy-aware process data mining - Process metadata and semantic reasoning - Process patterns and standards - Foundations of business process models - Resource management in business process execution - Process tracing and monitoring - Process change management and evolution - Business process lifecycle - Case studies and experience reports - Social process discovery - Crowdsourced process definition and discovery – Workshop Format – In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop: The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students. Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be prepared with particular care, making ready comments and suggestions. The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session. The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges during which every participant will be asked to assemble their thoughts/project ideas/goals/etc that they got out of the workshop. # Call for PhD Research Plans # The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social implications. Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized following the following structure: Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance. Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the relevant the research questions. Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant references (papers or books). Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the specific contribution. Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results, limitations of the approach. Research stage: describes what the student has done so far. - SIMPDA PhD award - A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research plan submitted. Student Scholarships An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it # Keynote Speakers # Jorge Cardoso University of Coimbra, Portugal - Compliance of Business Processes with Reference Models - Reference models provide best practices to design effective and efficient business processes. However, a main challenge is to evaluate how these best practices are implemented. One limitation of existing approaches is the assumption that compliance can be determined using the notion of process equivalence. Nonetheless, the use of equivalence algorithms is not suitable since two models can have different structures but one process can still be compliant with the other. This talk presents an approach to measure the compliance of process models with reference models, which was used by a German passenger airline using IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) reference models. The talk also covers various initiatives to evaluate the quality and understandability of process models. # Organizers # CHAIRS - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Barbara Russo, Free University of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy ADVISORY BOARD - Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia - Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada - Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland # Important Dates # - Submission of Full Papers: September 15th 2014 - Submission of PhD Research Plans: September 15th 2014 - Notification of Acceptance: October 15th 2014 - Submission of Camera Ready Papers: November 10th 2014 # Program Committee # Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux, France Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-Uni­ver­si­ty Bo­chum, Germany Helen Balinsky, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, UK Valentina Emilia Balas, University of Arad, Romania Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK Richard Chbeir, University of Bourgogne, France Gregorio Martinez Perez, University of Murcia, Spain Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada Jan Mendling, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria Farookh Hussain, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE Wil Van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands Ronald Maier, University of Innsbruck, Austria Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands Marco Montali, Free Unviersity of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy Elizabeth Chang, University New South Wales, Australia Peter Spyns, Flemish Government, Belgium Angelo Corallo, University of Salento, Italy Antonio Maña Gómez, University of Málaga, Spain Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestinian Territory Isabella Seeber, University of Innsbruck, Austria Chi Hung, Tsinghua University, China Alessandra Toninelli, Engineering Group, Italy Haris Mouratidis, University of Brighton, UK Abder Koukam, University of Technology, UTBM France Fabrizio Maria Maggi, University of Tartu, Estonia Massimiliano De Leoni, Eindhoven TU, Netherlands Edgar Weippl, TU Vienna, Austria Pnina Soffer, University of Haifa, Israel Jianmin Wang, Tsinghua University Beijing, China Minseok Song, UNIST, South Korea Roland Rieke, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany Josep Carmona, UPC - Barcelona, Spain Mark Strembeck, WU Vienna, Austria Matthias Weidlich, Imperial College, UK Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux Maria Leitner, University of Vienna, Austria Benoit Depaire, University of Hasselt, Belgium Barbara Weber, University of Innsbruck, Austria Babiga Birregah, University of Technology of Troyes, France # Historical Information on Previous Editions # SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis. The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series. Several events and activities arose off these simposia, among the most notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars: - Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29, 2010. - Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29, 2010. **************** Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani, sui loro migliori progetti. Sostiene la libera ricerca. Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro. Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani. Università degli Studi di Milano codice fiscale 80012650158 http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Tue May 13 07:23:56 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:23:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_ar?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Go?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ogle?= Message-ID: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> Bonjour, Hi Cet arrêt est très important, This judgement is very important Et en première page du New York Times And In first page of the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais Full judgement here attached in french and in english Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc est applicable It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable to the search engine Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que l'information sur le site d'origine est légale Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in consideration Bravo aux collègues espagnols Great our spanish colleagues Bonne journée, Have a nice day, Marie GEORGES -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Tue May 13 07:29:09 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:29:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?with_the_texts=2C_sorry_Fwd=3A_Inform?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ation_of_general_interest=3A_arret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxem?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?bourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Google?= References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> Message-ID: Début du message réexpédié : > De : Marie GEORGES > Date : 13 mai 2014 13:23:56 HAEC > À : Marie GEORGES > CCi : OLN , fichage at ldh-france.org, Florence Raynal , LEMOINE Philippe , Gaétan GORCE , Maurice Ronai , Marguerite Ouedrago/Bonane , Mouhamadou LO , Blaise Lionel MEMIAGHE , JNC , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Philippe.Walter at edoeb.admin.ch> WALTER" , Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin , Catherine SOUYRI-DESROSIER , Emilio Aced , "Dr. Alexander Dix" , Hansjürgen GARSTKA > Objet : Information of general interest: arret cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google > > Bonjour, > Hi > > Cet arrêt est très important, > This judgement is very important > > Et en première page du New York Times > And In first page of the New York Times > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > > Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > Full judgement here attached in french and in english > > Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc est applicable > It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable to the search engine > > Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > > Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in consideration > Bravo aux collègues espagnols > Great our spanish colleagues > > Bonne journée, > Have a nice day, > > Marie GEORGES -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Google 14 05 13 CEJ ARR?T DE LA COUR Q pr?judicielle DPA Espagne.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130919 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Google 14 05 13 CEJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT moteur de recherche DPA Espagne.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 129822 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue May 13 07:34:52 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:34:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> Message-ID: <757B7C6F-4053-4F16-915F-97CCC294F1F9@gmail.com> Merci Marie! Une information de première importance Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 13 mai 2014 à 13:23, Marie GEORGES a écrit : > > Bonjour, > Hi > > Cet arrêt est très important, > This judgement is very important > > Et en première page du New York Times > And In first page of the New York Times > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > > Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > Full judgement here attached in french and in english > > Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc est applicable > It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable to the search engine > > Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > > Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in consideration > Bravo aux collègues espagnols > Great our spanish colleagues > > Bonne journée, > Have a nice day, > > Marie GEORGES > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue May 13 07:38:19 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:38:19 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 20:51 12/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >To reach rough consensus means that there are many parties which did >not get what they wanted. Wolfgang, I suggest we work first on a more precise terminology concerning what is called "multistakeholderism", French names "concertation", and I identify more precisely as a multitude's polycratic decision process. As an example the term "rough concensus" is totally inadequate as being out of scope. A rough concensus is evaluated by a Chair and subject to an appeal procedure. When you talk about rough concensus you are therefore assuming the Chair's role, what is legitimate since it is your own evaluation, but an evaluation is not a decision. Then, the following debate can be assimilated to an appeal procedure, which has no conclusion. All what can be said is that you evaluate degrees of active and passive convergence and divergence of which the short, mid and long term metrics could be some effects to be described (i.e. achievements). 1. For example, you discern an achievement which is the "naming shaming": this is something tangible which has to be propragated. 2. I discern an other achievement which is a clarifying failure. They have not collectively understood yet that the internet is no more for everyone (ISOC Vint Cerf's RFC 3271), but as Gene Gaines puts it: it IS everyone. This has a triple immediate impact. 1. That politics as per the prevaling Aristotle's definition *was* the art of commanding free people. Politicians in Sao Paulo have failed to acknowledged that politics, i.e. their job, is now the art of commanding free connected people. This disqualify these politicians as the leaders of our world digital ecosystem (WDE). 2. That "connected" means "both ways" and "meshed". Man is now a seven senses liberated social animal, meaning that "hub and spoke" networking and multistakeholderism as advocated are not a progress but a regression. This also disqualifies the merchants who want to flood our networks from the gates of their edges. 3. That postponing the "neutrality" issue (the only actually new result of Sao Paulo) means that they accept that in our today's world some digitalities (as the digital face of the persons) are more equal than others what is the negation of both people's democracies and multitude's polycracy. I am afraid that on such premises we cannot build anything stable yet. A lot of understanding, comprehending, and testing work still seems necessary? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 13 07:55:24 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:55:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140513135524.55c29da7@quill> Jefsey wrote: > At 20:51 12/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >To reach rough consensus means that there are many parties which did > >not get what they wanted. > > I suggest we work first on a more precise terminology [...] > As an example the term "rough concensus" is totally > inadequate as being out of scope. A rough concensus is evaluated by a > Chair and subject to an appeal procedure. +1 Also, a key element of rough consensus processes is that those who are critical of a proposal must be given the opportunity to explain what in their view is wrong with the proposal, and there must be a culture of listening to and considering such arguments. “Rough consensus” means that after listening to and considering the arguments of those who hold critical views, there is still an overwhelming majority in support of the proposal. In my opinion, rough consensus processes are a very valuable tool when institutionalized in a proper context, as is the case e.g. in IETF. Using the term “rough consensus” for what happened at NetMundial is in my view not only factually wrong, but also comes with a significant risk of muddying the waters to the point where it becomes near impossibly difficult of explaining to people what rough consensus processes are and why the outcome documents of (genuine!) rough consensus processes should be considered to have significant weight and credibility -- within the scope of the expertise that is broadly distributed among the group that has reached rough consensus (which scope is of course rather limited in the case of the IETF.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 13 10:48:09 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:48:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] Fwd: BCP 188, RFC 7258 on Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack In-Reply-To: <5371DF0C.7000409@cs.tcd.ie> References: <5371DF0C.7000409@cs.tcd.ie> Message-ID: <537230A9.9030705@acm.org> fyi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [perpass] Fwd: BCP 188, RFC 7258 on Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:59:56 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell To: perpass FYI. Thanks to everyone who contributed, and who is continuing to contribute as we get into the more detailed work... Cheers, S. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: BCP 188, RFC 7258 on Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:45:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org Reply-To: ietf at ietf.org To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org CC: drafts-update-ref at iana.org, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. BCP 188 RFC 7258 Title: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack Author: S. Farrell, H. Tschofenig Status: Best Current Practice Stream: IETF Date: May 2014 Mailbox: stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie, Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net Pages: 6 Characters: 13396 See Also: BCP 188 I-D Tag: draft-farrell-perpass-attack-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258.txt Pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocols, where possible. BCP: This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 13 11:03:42 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:03:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <20140513100555.5f236b8c@quill> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20140513100555.5f236b8c@quill> Message-ID: <5372344E.9090605@acm.org> Hi, Disappointment is not rejection. Though Niel's impromptu declaration was a well delivered statement of what more is needed. Things we can either work on, or we continue to curse the past about. cheers avri On 13-May-14 04:05, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > wrote: > >> I can not find in the transcripts any statement - with the exception >> of the four governments I mentioned in my article - which expressed >> formal reservations against the document. > > In > http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf > you can find the following statement: > > > """ > NIELS TEN OEVER: > > We would like to thank the Brazilian government for > organizing the global multistakeholder meeting on the future of > Internet governance. We, as a diverse group of civil society > organizations from around the world, appreciate having been > part of the process. However, we are disappointed because the > outcome document fails to adequately reflect a number of our key > concerns. > > The lack of acknowledgment of net neutrality at NETmundial is > deeply disappointing. Mass surveillance has not been > sufficiently denounced as being inconsistent with human rights > and the principle of proportionality. > > And although the addition of language on Internet intermediary > liability is welcomed, the final text fails to ensure due process > safeguards which could undermine the rights to freedom of > expression and right to privacy. > > We feel that this document has not sufficiently moved us > beyond a status quo in terms of the protection of fundamental > rights and the balancing of power and influence of different > stakeholder groups. Thank you. > """ > > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that a number of >> civil society organisations and also other stakeholders from the >> private sector, governments and technical community were not >> satisfied with parts of the document. But to be "not satisfied" is >> different from "formal reservations/opposition". In a >> multistakeholder process it is more or less unavoidable that "nobody >> is satisfied". To reach rough consensus means that there are many >> parties which did not get what they wanted. Otherwise it would be >> "full consensus". And it was very obvious that there was no full >> consensus for the NetMundial outcome document. Nevertheless, the Sao >> Paulo declaration has a special meaning. Basic elements - as the >> principles which are very balanced and represent to a high degree >> civil society values - got the support of the majority of all present >> stakeholders. This is, as I said, remarkable and new, compared to the >> previous documents which were limited in scope and support. The >> "limitations" are also relevant for the very interesting document >> adopted by the Council of the European Union (this is not the EU >> Commission and also not the Council of Europe). This is a document >> supported by the 27 member states of the EU. I have my doubts, >> whether the 193+ governments of the UN member states would support >> this document. Net Mundial was not the end of the discussion, in >> particular with regard to the Roadmap. It is very good that we get >> now more input into a the roadmap process which will lead us into the >> year 2020 and beyond. And the new EU council paper is a very >> substantial input. As a European I would be happy if governments from >> non-European countries would take this document as inspiration. I >> also recommend, that non-governmental stakeholders take this EU >> Council document as a serious contribution, in particular with regard >> to the respect for human rights. BTW, all EU member states are also >> members of the OECD and do also support the OECD Principles for >> Internet Policy making, which were opposed by CISAC (at least two >> principles). If you compare the two questionable OECD principles with >> Net Mundial than NetMundial looks much better from a civil society >> perspective. Best wishes wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder >> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 17:32 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles >>> of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ >> >> To quote your paper >> >> "And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by the >> most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, the >> gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil society >> organizations." >> >> Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial document >> is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is apart from >> the fact that a very large number of civil society organisations >> present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and I can tell >> you, an even greater number outside oppose it. >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue May 13 12:13:28 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:13:28 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jefsey wrote: > 2. I discern an other achievement which is a clarifying failure. They have > not collectively understood yet that the internet is no more for everyone > (ISOC Vint Cerf's RFC 3271), but as Gene Gaines puts it: it IS everyone. > I am interested and thus curious. By this dimension you identify, what would be your measure/criteria of success at NETmundial or in any future Ig process? mawaki > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 13 12:29:31 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:29:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <20140513135524.55c29da7@quill> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <20140513135524.55c29da7@quill> Message-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Also, a key element of rough consensus processes is that those who are > critical of a proposal must be given the opportunity to explain what in > their view is wrong with the proposal, and there must be a culture of > listening to and considering such arguments. > > "Rough consensus" means that after listening to and considering the > arguments of those who hold critical views, there is still an > overwhelming majority in support of the proposal. > > In my opinion, rough consensus processes are a very valuable tool when > institutionalized in a proper context, as is the case e.g. in IETF. > > Using the term "rough consensus" for what happened at NetMundial is in > my view not only factually wrong, but also comes with a significant > risk of muddying the waters to the point where it becomes near > impossibly difficult of explaining to people what rough consensus > processes are and why the outcome documents of (genuine!) rough > consensus processes should be considered to have significant weight and > credibility -- within the scope of the expertise that is broadly > distributed among the group that has reached rough consensus (which > scope is of course rather limited in the case of the IETF.) > I'd agree that we need to be careful with the use of words here. We already have enough trouble with "multistakeholderism"! Was what we set out to do at NETmundial subject to consensus call procedure (whether full or rough consensus)? Were we in position to possibly check all the boxes for such a procedure? It's not really clear to me NETmundial was designed to do that. However, this perception (of something of a consensus) may be due to the fact that the NETmundial Declaration still is the outcome of negotiations or of a bargain (if you will) among several parties with divergent interests. In those conditions, the outcome is inevitably seen as something most parties agree on, to some extent, if only though compromising and concessions. Now maybe we need a (more) proper way to document what the disagreements are/were as well as to define the kind of agreement that (the NETmundial outcome) actually is. Cheers! mawaki > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue May 13 18:11:20 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 00:11:20 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 18:13 13/05/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: >On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jefsey ><jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote: >2. I discern an other achievement which is a clarifying failure. >They have not collectively understood yet that the internet is no >more for everyone (ISOC Vint Cerf's RFC 3271), but as Gene Gaines >puts it: it IS everyone. > >I am interested and thus curious. By this dimension you identify, >what would be your measure/criteria of success at NETmundial or in >any future Ig process? Same as democracy but adapted to the double context of digitality and resulting polycracy. I certinaly need to explain :-) As persons we now have an "extended" face of our personality which is our "digitaly", i.e. the empowerment of our digital interaction with the digital ecosystem. We have to build it as we do for our personality, except that at the end of the day our personalty (soul?) should remains the ultimate decision maker. "Technical singularity" mongers like Raymond Kurzwell think otherwise: that our digitality will have to take the leadership, to fight machines' supremacy - and possibly be defeated. I think that this technical singularity does exist, is occurying and is the process we are submitted to (e.g. the IG debate) after the digital renormalization of our time (the practical experience of the ubiquity of quantum physic, digital, etc. discontinuities where our brain faked a continuity which called for an Euclidian nano-infinity). However this singularity does not mean we will be supersed by the machine, but that we have succeded in creating the machines we absolutely needed to survive and master the complexity this digital renormalization has unveiled. I will add that this digital renormalization and the resulting access to complexity was necessary for us to scale to the increase of the size, density, resulting needs, and education of our society. And probably to address the earth pollution, energy and water issues, etc. This is what the WSIS expressed in saying that the Information Society is to be "people centered", "à caractère humain" (and not "informatisée") in French, and very acurately "centrada en la persona" in Spanish. Personality is to control digitality. Not the other way around. But we certainly have to make sure this is true. This digitality is therefore in charge of the digital face of our human relational space, I call our "Virtual Global Network". The way we chose to get, organize, optimize, standardize and use our digital energy. The same as our personality does for our mental energy and our body for our physical energy. This is why, the same as we want to be physically free in the four geographical dimensions (length, higth, depth, time) we want to be free in the four digital dimensions (data, metadata, syllodata, and the same shared time). Our intellect equally wants to be free in these seven dimensions as well as in its own conceptual dimensions. (NB, just in case: data are actualy data, capta and tracta - this will be for another day; metadata are data on data; syllodata are data between linked data). Now, we have (at least) two new big problems we are confronted to, that Sao Paulo should have/has(?)clumsilly investigated: 1. for millenaries we have been spiritually bound to a culture and physically bound to a place. We have organized these bounds through our social contract with sovereign entities. We call it Nation-State. Mentally and physically we belong to a people, to a nation. We identified it as a human right as well as to participate in their governement (what they want to deprive us today through a multisatkeholderism that would partly reject governments). The NTIA position is a position, not an acceptable pre-requisite. Yet our digitality is not bound to anything: digitally we are a multitude. Multitude is the technical term for boundless individuals. Many want to attach our boundlessness to their so-called RFC 6852 "digital community" to get our share of the resulting so-called RFC 6852 "huge bounty", in binding us to their business, products, edge services, operating system, choices, coalitions. I am sorry, but I am and I want to stay digitally free. I perfectly know they do not want our VGNs to emerge as stakeholders. This is too bad for them: they will have to because this is not only my right; this is my technical survival necessity. This is why I bootstrap the fsp4net coalition and suggest the VGNSO cooperation (Since you speak French you may want to have a look at http://sv2b.net, my gaullish e-village). 2. our mental and physical (i.e. brainware and hardware faces) have until been considered in order to identify and theorize information, and to indentify but not yet theorize communication. With digitality we only start discovering the third main (now computedly facilitated) component of our seven dimension world: intellition. Intellition is what makes sense. The semantic extension to mathematic processing based upon big data. Most of what we know was never told (communication) nor taught (information) to us: we infered it (intelligent inferenciation). The issue is that there are two big scale intellition processes we know very well: Press and PRISM. One is supposed to be protected and the other opposed. This is the problem of the liberty of thinking (infering) + liberty of speaking vs. the liberty of being. What Smith summarized in explaining: if you don't want something to be known: don't do it! This raises huge questions. If we do not want to be subverted by the machine we have to educate the machine, and give it a human ethitechnic. It has to respect human privacy and its communications stay neutral. To do that we have to teach the human universe to the machine and give it comportmental limits. This means to standardize a common architectony (i.e. basic vision of the universe) that everyone, culture, thought, etc, can freely parameter and be legally accounted responsible for. People must go to jail if their digitality (i.e. the digital face and periphery of their person or units of their VGN) has commited a crime they were able to prevent. The same, as if your dog bites your neighbohrs, or a tree in your garden falls on a car on the road. This is a totally new world, that Google, etc. would like to control through the datamass. Their non-regulated accumulation of data represents a bigger danger for humanity than atomic bombs. Considers a world flooded by accurate black-mailing spam. You do not think it possible? Please recall the AOL example: http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/08/7433/ These are "ulterior" areas, where I expect my governement to protect me from wrong innovation. By the way, this is a constituational obligation in France, both for the state and for informed citizens, under the precautionary principle. Internet informed, independent, intelligent IUsers. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue May 13 18:46:42 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:46:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Check out the 3 next-gen internet networks that raised $15M from the NSF In-Reply-To: References: <470EDF37-C13E-4F04-B084-AD178FE77656@warpspeed.com>, Message-ID: FYI, perhaps of interest. Please remember these are - university research projects. On other hand, NSF next gen Internet research has in past at times had impact. Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:38 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Check out the 3 next-gen internet networks that raised $15M from the NSF ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dewayne Hendricks > Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Check out the 3 next-gen internet networks that raised $15M from the NSF To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Check out the 3 next-gen internet networks that raised $15M from the NSF By Stacey Higginbotham May 13 2014 SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation just gave $15 million to three research projects trying to reinvent the internet. Here's what those projects are doing and why they matter. The effort to rebuild the internet so it can handle the anticipated onslaught of connected devices and people has reached a new phase in the U.S., now that the National Science Foundation is giving three research institutions a total of $15 million to take their ideas from paper to pilot. [snip] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed May 14 03:33:47 2014 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:33:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) Message-ID: <6BCF8CFB-AFCB-40BD-B550-3E9DC2BDA597@diplomacy.edu> If you are in Geneva, plese join us for the book launch ‘Peacetime Regime of State Activities in Cyberspace’. it is the most comprehensive coverage of this subject that includes technical, legal, policy, and diplomatic aspects of state activities in cyberspace during peacetime. Book will be presented by Dr Katharina Ziolkowski, Federal Ministry of Defense (Germany) Here is the link for more information and electronic version of the book: http://giplatform.org/events/book-presentation-peacetime-regime-state-activities-cyberspace Regards, Jovan Jovan Kurbalija, Phd Director, DiploFoundation WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | Mobile +41 (0) 797884226 Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed May 14 03:58:41 2014 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:58:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> Message-ID: <53732231.6040903@gih.com> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! Olivier On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Bonjour, > Hi > > Cet arrêt est très important, > This judgement is very important > > Et en première page du New York Times > And In first page of the New York Times > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > > Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > Full judgement here attached in french and in english > > Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc est applicable > It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable to the search engine > > Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > > Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in consideration > Bravo aux collègues espagnols > Great our spanish colleagues > > Bonne journée, > Have a nice day, > > Marie GEORGES -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 14 06:55:23 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 19:55:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Information_of_general_interest?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_arret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_agai?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nst_Google?= In-Reply-To: <53732231.6040903@gih.com> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> Message-ID: <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > > It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the > premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome > to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise -- this is not the end Adam > Olivier > > On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: >> Bonjour, >> Hi >> >> Cet arrêt est très important, >> This judgement is very important >> >> Et en première page du New York Times >> And In first page of the New York Times >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp >> >> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais >> Full judgement here attached in french and in english >> >> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc est applicable >> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable to the search engine >> >> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que l'information sur le site d'origine est légale >> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) >> >> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. >> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in consideration >> Bravo aux collègues espagnols >> Great our spanish colleagues >> >> Bonne journée, >> Have a nice day, >> >> Marie GEORGES > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 garth.graham at telus.net Wed May 14 13:29:15 2014 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:29:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <53718109.1070705@cafonso.ca> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> <53711ED8.5020609@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <53718109.1070705@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5341ADEF-14DA-4719-8E00-92AD945900E5@telus.net> In Canadian, a Pingo is a dome-shaped mound consisting of a layer of soil over a large core of ice, occurring in permafrost areas…. GG On 2014-05-12, at 7:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > In Portuguese, "pingo" is "drop" [of a liquid], sometimes used to define > something small: a little kid = "um pingo de gente"... From the verb > "pingar" (to drip). > > So the acronym does not sound adequate to us BRs... :) > > --c.a. > > On 05/12/2014 04:46 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> PINGO stands for P-rinciples of IN-ternet GO-vernance. It is the better BINGO! >> >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 21:19 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12-May-14 12:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Here's another claim which I think is misleading and inaccurate, if not >>> manifestly untrue: Wolfgang claims that the NetMundial outcome document >>> was "adopted by rough consensus by all stakeholder groups, with the >>> exception of the governments of Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India". >> >> >>> From my perceptions, having in the room, it is a true statement. >> >> Good article with reasonable perceptions. >> >> avri >> >> (but i don't like the term PINGO, sounds like some kind of NGO.) >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 garth.graham at telus.net Wed May 14 13:29:15 2014 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:29:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <53718109.1070705@cafonso.ca> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5370E982.1010308@itforchange.net> <20140512183913.25ee104b@quill> <53711ED8.5020609@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422A9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <53718109.1070705@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2A42D854-DFBE-4F0A-A4B4-8C2E5F20A8C2@telus.net> In Canadian, a Pingo is a dome-shaped mound consisting of a layer of soil over a large core of ice, occurring in permafrost areas…. GG On 2014-05-12, at 7:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > In Portuguese, "pingo" is "drop" [of a liquid], sometimes used to define > something small: a little kid = "um pingo de gente"... From the verb > "pingar" (to drip). > > So the acronym does not sound adequate to us BRs... :) > > --c.a. > > On 05/12/2014 04:46 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> PINGO stands for P-rinciples of IN-ternet GO-vernance. It is the better BINGO! >> >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 21:19 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12-May-14 12:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Here's another claim which I think is misleading and inaccurate, if not >>> manifestly untrue: Wolfgang claims that the NetMundial outcome document >>> was "adopted by rough consensus by all stakeholder groups, with the >>> exception of the governments of Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India". >> >> >>> From my perceptions, having in the room, it is a true statement. >> >> Good article with reasonable perceptions. >> >> avri >> >> (but i don't like the term PINGO, sounds like some kind of NGO.) >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 garth.graham at telus.net Wed May 14 14:53:20 2014 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:53:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B7A24@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <9462EB45-DBD8-4FF9-A9DA-08E8E933AA38@telus.net> I would like to underline that Kleinwächter is making a distinction in rule making (i.e. in governance) between processes that are “within the system,” and processes that are imposed from outside the system. That distinction is fundamental to understanding the principles governing the organization of complex adaptive systems. In effect, the processes of rule making in the IETF, and the processes of policy making in ICANN that mirror them, are “governed” by internal self-organization. The correct way to view them is as a beta test of the direction that rule making is taking in digital culture. To the degree that we’ve begun to supply a “roadmap” that increases awareness of how such processes of rule making work, it is perfectly natural for governments to resist them. After all, there are no governments that work that way now. GG On 2014-05-12, at 4:15 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" para. of the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not legally binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build an alternative root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of services to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the checks and baalances are within the system, not in external oversight bodies. And yes it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC culture. It could be a source of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON Erik > Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO > > Dear Mr Kleinwächter, > > Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to use the NETmundial text! :-) > > I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? > > > OPEN STANDARDS > Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. > > > If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? > > Grateful for advice. > > I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots exist): > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-20140505/000043.html > http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html > > Best regards. > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] PINGO > > Hi, > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ > > wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Wed May 14 17:16:10 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:16:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Information_of_general_interest?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_arret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_agai?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nst_Google?= In-Reply-To: <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! Olivier, read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest of people to know... In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will be at the ECtHR... Best regards Marie Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. >> >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! >> > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise -- this is not the end > > > > Adam > > >> Olivier >> >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: >>> Bonjour, >>> Hi >>> >>> Cet arrêt est très important, >>> This judgement is very important >>> >>> Et en première page du New York Times >>> And In first page of the New York Times >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp >>> >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english >>> >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc est applicable >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable to the search engine >>> >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que l'information sur le site d'origine est légale >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) >>> >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in consideration >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols >>> Great our spanish colleagues >>> >>> Bonne journée, >>> Have a nice day, >>> >>> Marie GEORGES >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ocl at gih.com Wed May 14 19:34:30 2014 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 01:34:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Information_of_general_interest?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_arret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_agai?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nst_Google?= In-Reply-To: <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5373FD86.5070307@gih.com> On 14/05/2014 12:55, Adam Peake wrote: > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> > This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. >> > >> > It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the >> > premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome >> > to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! >> > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise -- this is not the end > > Aaah - opinion, opinions... Here's another one: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/europes-troubling-new-right-to-be-forgotten/370796/ -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.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 lorena at collaboratory.de Wed May 14 20:50:15 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 02:50:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> Message-ID: the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351 or http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and many more. This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights higher than others... Kind regards, Lorena 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article > > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! Olivier, > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest > of people to know... > > In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will be at the > ECtHR... > > Best regards > Marie > > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > >> > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > >> > > > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise > -- this is not the end > > > > < > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > > > Adam > > > > > >> Olivier > >> > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >>> Bonjour, > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, > >>> This judgement is very important > >>> > >>> Et en première page du New York Times > >>> And In first page of the New York Times > >>> > >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > >>> > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english > >>> > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc > est applicable > >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable > to the search engine > >>> > >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a > person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in > the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes > undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > >>> > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in > consideration > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols > >>> Great our spanish colleagues > >>> > >>> Bonne journée, > >>> Have a nice day, > >>> > >>> Marie GEORGES > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 15 02:57:12 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:57:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <9462EB45-DBD8-4FF9-A9DA-08E8E933AA38@telus.net> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B7A24@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9462EB45-DBD8-4FF9-A9DA-08E8E933AA38@telus.net> Message-ID: <042301cf700a$e7cb06a0$b76113e0$@gmail.com> While accepting your overall point Garth, I think in the specifics and particularly for ICANN there would be the need to at least argue for, if not demonstrate that the rules were in fact being "generated from within the system". A case could I believe (and has been made by some) that the rules were in fact being generated for ICANN outside the system (by corporations or specific governments) and then "laundered" through ICANN for implementation. (I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I would think that much of the discussion concerning ICANN's accountability or lack thereof (and ultimately to whom it is or should be accountable) was precisely around that point... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Garth Graham Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: JOSEFSSON Erik Subject: Re: [governance] PINGO I would like to underline that Kleinwächter is making a distinction in rule making (i.e. in governance) between processes that are “within the system,” and processes that are imposed from outside the system. That distinction is fundamental to understanding the principles governing the organization of complex adaptive systems. In effect, the processes of rule making in the IETF, and the processes of policy making in ICANN that mirror them, are “governed” by internal self-organization. The correct way to view them is as a beta test of the direction that rule making is taking in digital culture. To the degree that we’ve begun to supply a “roadmap” that increases awareness of how such processes of rule making work, it is perfectly natural for governments to resist them. After all, there are no governments that work that way now. GG On 2014-05-12, at 4:15 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" para. of the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not legally binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build an alternative root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of services to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the checks and baalances are within the system, not in external oversight bodies. And yes it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC culture. It could be a source of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON > Erik > Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO > > Dear Mr Kleinwächter, > > Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to > use the NETmundial text! :-) > > I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? > > > OPEN STANDARDS > Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. > > > If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? > > Grateful for advice. > > I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots exist): > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-2014050 > 5/000043.html > http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html > > Best regards. > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] PINGO > > Hi, > > here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_princi > ples_on_internet_governance/ > > wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu May 15 03:25:49 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:25:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> Message-ID: <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human > rights higher than others... Of course the court was speaking in relation to a specific context. If in a specific context two different human rights are both relevant, but so that each of them taken separately would lead to a different outcome of the court case, of course the court has to consider which of the human rights is more directly relevant in the specific kind of context of the case at hand. There is nothing undemocratic about that. In this particular judgment, the court has ruled in a way that makes a well-established (in European law) legal principle on the balance between privacy rights and freedom of speech still effective in the Internet age with its search engines. I personally think that this judgment is the right decision. It is a decision which upholds the right of the democratic countries of Europe to define the balance between privacy rights and freedom of expression slightly differently from how that is done in the US. If Europe were to lose this right, that would from my perspective mean giving in to tendencies which are (whether intentionally or not) in their effect indistinguishable from imperialism on the part of the US. That would imply a very severe loss of democracy. 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Thu May 15 03:30:51 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:30:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> Message-ID: 2014-05-15 9:25 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : > Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > > > This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human > > rights higher than others... > > Of course the court was speaking in relation to a specific context. > > The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. It states that the right to privacy is higher ranked and, based on that assumption, it re-balances the situation. This is a different procedure than a mere balance. This considerations are based on completely different assumptions on human rights than the standard "no human right is above the others". There is a lot undemocratic about that. Kind regards, Lorena > If in a specific context two different human rights are both relevant, > but so that each of them taken separately would lead to a different > outcome of the court case, of course the court has to consider which of > the human rights is more directly relevant in the specific kind of > context of the case at hand. > > There is nothing undemocratic about that. > > In this particular judgment, the court has ruled in a way that makes a > well-established (in European law) legal principle on the balance > between privacy rights and freedom of speech still effective in the > Internet age with its search engines. I personally think that this > judgment is the right decision. > > It is a decision which upholds the right of the democratic countries of > Europe to define the balance between privacy rights and freedom of > expression slightly differently from how that is done in the US. > > If Europe were to lose this right, that would from my perspective mean > giving in to tendencies which are (whether intentionally or not) in > their effect indistinguishable from imperialism on the part of the US. > That would imply a very severe loss of democracy. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 15 03:56:41 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:56:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Removal References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an individual has to make a request to a search engine to remove the data/links to the orginal data to the operator of a search engine, in this case Google. But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. If there are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? Wolfgang . IDies she/he have t. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lorena Jaume-Palasi Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie GEORGES Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351 or http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and many more. This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights higher than others... Kind regards, Lorena 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article > > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! Olivier, > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest > of people to know... > > In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will be at the > ECtHR... > > Best regards > Marie > > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > >> > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > >> > > > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise > -- this is not the end > > > > < > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > > > Adam > > > > > >> Olivier > >> > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >>> Bonjour, > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, > >>> This judgement is very important > >>> > >>> Et en première page du New York Times > >>> And In first page of the New York Times > >>> > >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > >>> > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english > >>> > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc > est applicable > >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable > to the search engine > >>> > >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a > person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in > the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes > undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > >>> > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in > consideration > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols > >>> Great our spanish colleagues > >>> > >>> Bonne journée, > >>> Have a nice day, > >>> > >>> Marie GEORGES > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ? Newsletter ? Facebook ? Twitter ? Youtube -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu May 15 04:04:06 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:04:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <042301cf700a$e7cb06a0$b76113e0$@gmail.com> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B7A24@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9462EB45-DBD8-4FF9-A9DA-08E8E933AA38@telus.net> <042301cf700a$e7cb06a0$b76113e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D1417CC-2EF3-4F2A-B487-78D3FC8D1ACC@gmail.com> Michael, It would certainly help if you were to be precise about the specific issues and the specific path that the formulation of a rule took, to illustrate our point. George On May 15, 2014, at 9:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > While accepting your overall point Garth, I think in the specifics and > particularly for ICANN there would be the need to at least argue for, if not > demonstrate that the rules were in fact being "generated from within the > system". A case could I believe (and has been made by some) that the rules > were in fact being generated for ICANN outside the system (by corporations > or specific governments) and then "laundered" through ICANN for > implementation. (I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I would think > that much of the discussion concerning ICANN's accountability or lack > thereof (and ultimately to whom it is or should be accountable) was > precisely around that point... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Garth Graham > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:53 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Cc: JOSEFSSON Erik > Subject: Re: [governance] PINGO > > I would like to underline that Kleinwächter is making a distinction in rule > making (i.e. in governance) between processes that are “within the system,” > and processes that are imposed from outside the system. That distinction is > fundamental to understanding the principles governing the organization of > complex adaptive systems. In effect, the processes of rule making in the > IETF, and the processes of policy making in ICANN that mirror them, are > “governed” by internal self-organization. The correct way to view them is > as a beta test of the direction that rule making is taking in digital > culture. To the degree that we’ve begun to supply a “roadmap” that > increases awareness of how such processes of rule making work, it is > perfectly natural for governments to resist them. After all, there are no > governments that work that way now. > > GG > > On 2014-05-12, at 4:15 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" para. of > the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not legally > binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build an alternative > root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of services > to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the checks and > baalances are within the system, not in external oversight bodies. And yes > it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC culture. It could be a source > of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON >> Erik >> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO >> >> Dear Mr Kleinwächter, >> >> Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to >> use the NETmundial text! :-) >> >> I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? >> >> >> OPEN STANDARDS >> Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual > and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow > for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and > interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with > human rights and allow development and innovation. >> >> >> If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform > public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP > is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it > contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and > therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? >> >> Grateful for advice. >> >> I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots > exist): >> >> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-2014050 >> 5/000043.html >> http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html >> >> Best regards. >> >> //Erik >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, >> Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] PINGO >> >> Hi, >> >> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the > NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_princi >> ples_on_internet_governance/ >> >> wolfgang > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 15 04:07:58 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:07:58 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) References: <6BCF8CFB-AFCB-40BD-B550-3E9DC2BDA597@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jovan, can you resend the URL for the PDF of the book? The linke for the file is damaged. Thanks Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jovan Kurbalija Gesendet: Mi 14.05.2014 09:33 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) If you are in Geneva, plese join us for the book launch 'Peacetime Regime of State Activities in Cyberspace'. it is the most comprehensive coverage of this subject that includes technical, legal, policy, and diplomatic aspects of state activities in cyberspace during peacetime. Book will be presented by Dr Katharina Ziolkowski, Federal Ministry of Defense (Germany) Here is the link for more information and electronic version of the book: http://giplatform.org/events/book-presentation-peacetime-regime-state-activities-cyberspace Regards, Jovan Jovan Kurbalija, Phd Director, DiploFoundation WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | Mobile +41 (0) 797884226 Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 04:21:02 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:21:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] PINGO In-Reply-To: <5D1417CC-2EF3-4F2A-B487-78D3FC8D1ACC@gmail.com> References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642296@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B7A24@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164229F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9462EB45-DBD8-4FF9-A9DA-08E8E933AA38@telus.net> <042301cf700a$e7cb06a0$b76113e0$@gmail.com> <5D1417CC-2EF3-4F2A-B487-78D3FC8D1ACC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <046001cf7016$9de00750$d9a015f0$@gmail.com> George, As I've said in the past, I don't know ICANN sufficiently well to comment at the depth that you are asking... My question however, was simply to suggest that there is no particular reason to give ICANN a "free pass" as being completely "internally driven" in its rule setting as per GG's post especially given the discussion/controversy that has been presented here and elsewhere concerning precisely this issue. M -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:04 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael Cc: Garth Graham Subject: Re: [governance] PINGO Michael, It would certainly help if you were to be precise about the specific issues and the specific path that the formulation of a rule took, to illustrate our point. George On May 15, 2014, at 9:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > While accepting your overall point Garth, I think in the specifics and > particularly for ICANN there would be the need to at least argue for, > if not demonstrate that the rules were in fact being "generated from > within the system". A case could I believe (and has been made by > some) that the rules were in fact being generated for ICANN outside > the system (by corporations or specific governments) and then > "laundered" through ICANN for implementation. (I'm not arguing one way > or the other, but I would think that much of the discussion concerning > ICANN's accountability or lack thereof (and ultimately to whom it is > or should be accountable) was precisely around that point... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Garth > Graham > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:53 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Cc: JOSEFSSON Erik > Subject: Re: [governance] PINGO > > I would like to underline that Kleinwächter is making a distinction in > rule making (i.e. in governance) between processes that are “within the system,” > and processes that are imposed from outside the system. That > distinction is fundamental to understanding the principles governing > the organization of complex adaptive systems. In effect, the > processes of rule making in the IETF, and the processes of policy > making in ICANN that mirror them, are “governed” by internal > self-organization. The correct way to view them is as a beta test of > the direction that rule making is taking in digital culture. To the > degree that we’ve begun to supply a “roadmap” that increases awareness > of how such processes of rule making work, it is perfectly natural for > governments to resist them. After all, there are no governments that work that way now. > > GG > > On 2014-05-12, at 4:15 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" >> para. of > the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not > legally binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build > an alternative > root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of > services to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the > checks and baalances are within the system, not in external oversight > bodies. And yes it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC > culture. It could be a source of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON >> Erik >> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO >> >> Dear Mr Kleinwächter, >> >> Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how >> to use the NETmundial text! :-) >> >> I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? >> >> >> OPEN STANDARDS >> Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by >> individual > and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that > allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, > secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must > be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. >> >> >> If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to >> inform > public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As > the EP is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue > that it contributes to a widely used social network platform on the > internet and therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? >> >> Grateful for advice. >> >> I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those >> dots > exist): >> >> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-201405 >> 0 >> 5/000043.html >> http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html >> >> Best regards. >> >> //Erik >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, >> Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] PINGO >> >> Hi, >> >> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles >> of the > NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_princ >> i >> ples_on_internet_governance/ >> >> wolfgang > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 15 04:21:27 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:21:27 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6BCF8CFB-AFCB-40BD-B550-3E9DC2BDA597@diplomacy.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6BD1E2B1-354D-43EB-ACEC-8207F8717529@glocom.ac.jp> On May 15, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > > Jovan, > > can you resend the URL for the PDF of the book? The linke for the file is damaged. > This? "Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace" Adam > Thanks > > Wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jovan Kurbalija > Gesendet: Mi 14.05.2014 09:33 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) > > If you are in Geneva, plese join us for the book launch 'Peacetime Regime of State Activities in Cyberspace'. it is the most comprehensive coverage of this subject that includes technical, legal, policy, and diplomatic aspects of state activities in cyberspace during peacetime. Book will be presented by Dr Katharina Ziolkowski, Federal Ministry of Defense (Germany) Here is the link for more information and electronic version of the book: http://giplatform.org/events/book-presentation-peacetime-regime-state-activities-cyberspace > > Regards, Jovan > > > Jovan Kurbalija, Phd > Director, DiploFoundation > WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland > Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | Mobile +41 (0) 797884226 > Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija > > Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Thu May 15 04:23:03 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:23:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Removal In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, yes, exactly. This court decision, apart from the problematic freedom of expression aspects provides for no legal clarity and leads to privacy-by-default (at the expense of FoE) for pragmatical reasons on the long run... see some detailled explanations e.g. here: http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/ Warm regards, Lorena 2014-05-15 9:56 GMT+02:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: > > > > Hi, > > I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an individual > has to make a request to a search engine to remove the data/links to the > orginal data to the operator of a search engine, in this case Google. > > But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. If there > are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? > > Wolfgang > > > > > > . IDies she/he have t. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lorena > Jaume-Palasi > Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie GEORGES > Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret cour > européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google > > the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and > data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In > democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers > -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty > much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: > http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or > http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351 or > > http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and > many more. > This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights > higher than others... > Kind regards, > Lorena > > > 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : > > > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article > > > > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! Olivier, > > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest > > of people to know... > > > > In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will be at > the > > ECtHR... > > > > Best regards > > Marie > > > > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > > > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > > >> > > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the > > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very > welcome > > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > > >> > > > > > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise > > -- this is not the end > > > > > > < > > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> Olivier > > >> > > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > > >>> Bonjour, > > >>> Hi > > >>> > > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, > > >>> This judgement is very important > > >>> > > >>> Et en première page du New York Times > > >>> And In first page of the New York Times > > >>> > > >>> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > > >>> > > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > > >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english > > >>> > > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens > > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui > donc > > est applicable > > >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of > > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely > applicable > > to the search engine > > >>> > > >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte > > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) > lors > > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que > > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > > >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a > > person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears > in > > the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes > > undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria > > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > > >>> > > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > > >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in > > consideration > > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols > > >>> Great our spanish colleagues > > >>> > > >>> Bonne journée, > > >>> Have a nice day, > > >>> > > >>> Marie GEORGES > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance > (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ? > Newsletter< > http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> > ? Facebook ? Twitter ? > >Youtube > > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 15 04:33:27 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:33:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] NYT: Thomas Piketty and His Critics (long email) Message-ID: <046f01cf7018$58647ba0$092d72e0$@gmail.com> One has to ask how long “Internet Governance” aided and abetted by the active and willing collaboration of “civil society” will be able to maintain its isolation from the broader issues of social justice and economic inequality; particularly since there is increasing evidence of the highly significant contribution which the Internet and digitization processes are playing in exacerbating and accelerating the processes that Piketty has so devastatingly documented. That NetMundial failed to even allow these issues to be raised, will I think be seen as a highly significant historical failure. M From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:55 PM To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; futurework at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Thomas Piketty and His Critics (long email) Thomas Piketty and His Critics * by Thomas B. Edsall * May 14, 2014 NY Times• Many on the left see the popularity of Thomas Piketty’s new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” as a sign of hope, but both optimists and pessimists share a belief more telling than Piketty’s success: the idea that the traditional Democratic economic agenda is dead. Piketty’s book reinforces the idea that the domestic policies liberals advocate for are palliative, not curative — that, in essence, inequality is here to stay. The problem of deepening inequality is enormous, Piketty writes: “Growth can of course be encouraged by investing in education, knowledge and nonpolluting technologies. But none of these will raise the rate of growth to 4 or 5 percent a year.” Instead, he writes, “for countries at the world technological frontier” — the United States, Northern Europe and parts of Asia — and “ultimately for the planet as a whole – there is ample reason to believe that the growth rate will not exceed 1-1.5 percent in the long run, no matter what economic policies are adopted.” Piketty’s analysis articulates what many people on the Democratic left feel intuitively, that a domestic tax, spending and regulatory agenda is ineffective in the face of the power of globalized capital to grind down wages and benefits. In Piketty’s view, the solution is a measure beyond the political reach of any individual nation or international body, as they are now constituted: a global wealth tax. Only such a tax “would contain the unlimited growth of global inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained in the long run and that ought to worry even the most fervent champions of the self-regulated market.” Piketty’s proposed global tax would set rates of 0.1 to 0.5 percent on fortunes of less than 1 million euros ($1.37 million); 1 percent on assets of 1 to 5 million euros ($1.37 million to $6.87 million); 2 percent on holdings of 5 to 10 million euros ($6.87 million to $13.7 million); and a sliding scale ultimately reaching 10 percent on fortunes of “several hundred million or several billion euros.” It would be an understatement to say that a tax on wealth faces major implementation problems. James Wetzler, the tax commissioner of New York State during the administration of Mario Cuomo, wrote in an essay that “absent aggressive policy intervention, the Western world appears to be headed toward a plutocratic dystopia characterized by wealth inequality approaching that of ancien régime France.” Wetzler added in an email that “to make the U.S. tax system more progressive, we should focus on strengthening our existing income, estate and gift taxes, not on a new starter like a wealth tax. A federal tax on wealth would require a constitutional amendment, and we know a lot less about its economic impact than we know about our existing taxes.” Further complicating implementation of a wealth tax, according to Wetzler, is that it “must address complexities associated with the fact that so much wealth is owned by corporations and other legal entities with dispersed ownership.” And that’s only part of the problem. Who would run a super-national tax collection agency? How would the taxes collected on assets owned by one person but held in multiple countries be distributed? How would global wealth tax supporters actually win the enactment of regulations that would require transparency of ownership of real estate, of bank holdings and of control of private corporations? Is it fair to describe Piketty’s analysis (as opposed to the upbeat man) as pessimistic? First, Piketty declares that traditional liberal remedies – education spending, worker protections, more progressive taxation, family stabilization assistance – may be helpful at the margins, but inequality will worsen “no matter what economic policies are.” Second, Piketty does not offer a weapon other than a massively redistributive and politically unachievable tax with which to battle this intensifying inequality. The unlikeliness of Piketty’s policy prescription becoming reality has not placated the right. James Pethokoukis, the money and politics blogger for the American Enterprise Institute, exemplifies the aversion to Piketty now erupting among American conservatives. Pethokoukis warns that Piketty’s “soft Marxism,” if unchallenged, “will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future policy battles will be waged. We’ve seen this movie before.” It’s not only the right that is disturbed; there is also opposition among a number of progressive activists and liberal policy analysts who recognize the dangers Piketty’s analysis poses to their agenda. While Piketty notes that “there is widespread discontent with the extreme inequality and lack of opportunity and security,” he simultaneously reinforces the “passivity and resignation” that comes out of “the failure of the state and of center-left parties to do much to change what’s happening,” Robert Kuttner, the founder and editor of The American Prospect, told me in an email. And so, Kuttner wrote, “working class people give up on it.” Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal economic think tank, took a harsher view of liberals’ attraction to Piketty. In an email, Baker wrote that “a big part of the appeal is that it allows people to say capitalism is awful but there is nothing that we can do about it.” Baker, who has formulated a detailed domestic agenda to fight inequality, worries “that many people will feel that they have done their part after struggling through a lengthy book on economics, and now they can go back to their vacation homes and say it’s all a shame.” It may be that Piketty is right that traditional liberal policies are largely ineffective. There are, however, grounds to challenge this pessimism. Support for this challenge can be found not only on the left, but also on the center-right. Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist, contends in a review of Piketty’s book that “the idea of a global wealth tax is replete with credibility and enforcement problems, aside from being politically implausible.” Rogoff views evidence of growing inequality presented by Piketty and others as “persuasive” and he proposes a number of alternative, smaller-scale remedies to control disproportionate wealth accumulation. He suggests a shift to a “relatively flat consumption tax, with a large deductible for progressivity.” Consumption taxes apply to spending, as opposed to income taxes that are levied on wages, benefits, profits from sales, dividends and other gains. Why, Rogoff asks, should we “try to move to an improbable global wealth tax when alternatives are available that are growth friendly, raise significant revenue, and can be made progressive through a very high exemption”? Rogoff cites a series of suggestions developed by Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard. These include “the elimination of payroll taxes for low-income workers, a cut in deductions for high-income workers, and higher inheritance taxes.” Despite the criticism of Piketty from right, left and center, he has, by shifting the focus from income to wealth, successfully transformed the debate over inequality. His influence is reflected in two essays by Clive Crook, a financial columnist at Bloomberg View. The first was an unrelentingly negative review of Piketty’s book, the headline of which gives you the flavor of the rest: “The Most Important Book Ever Is All Wrong.” “Every claim,” Crook argues, “is either unsupported or contradicted by Piketty’s own data and analysis.” On May 11, however, Crook did an about face and wrote a very different essay , “Piketty’s Wealth Tax Isn’t a Joke.” “One idea that’s been roundly dismissed by fans and critics alike deserves to be taken more seriously: the proposal for a global wealth tax,” Crook writes, noting that “on equity and efficiency grounds, it makes sense to tax wealth.” Crook, too, sees insurmountable difficulties for any entity that might try to collect an annual wealth tax and argues instead for “moderate but effective taxation of capital income combined with moderate but effective taxation of inheritance, so that unrealized gains are brought back into the tax base, either during the course of an investor’s life or at death.” In other words, centrists like Rogoff and Crook — in addition to liberals determined to assault bastions of privilege — are beginning to take proposals to restrain the growing concentration of wealth seriously. Both the shift of attention to wealth and the seriousness with which a proposal to constrain the accumulation of wealth is being taken represent a major change in the contemporary debate over inequality. Few Americans appear to begrudge the multimillion dollar annual compensation of entrepreneurial executives like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. But inherited and unearned wealth does not command the same legitimacy. In fact, the emergence of what Piketty calls “patrimonial capitalism” — concentrated wealth and political power passed on from generation to generation in a class-based social order — runs directly counter to the longstanding American commitment to equality of opportunity. Piketty has laid the intellectual groundwork for a challenge to a social and political order based on socioeconomic ranking by wealth stratification. Now we need effective politicians to articulate this challenge in ways that resonate with a striving electorate determined to achieve a higher standard of living through grit and hard work. Where is the level playing field? Politicians who seek to gain traction on these issues face high hurdles, but only those willing to risk confrontation can address the depth of public discontent, anger and resentment. Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/opinion/edsall-thomas-piketty-and-his-crit ics.html?emc=edit_ty_20140514 &nl=opinion&nlid=4223025&_r=0 __._,_.___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Thu May 15 04:39:43 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:39:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT: Thomas Piketty and His Critics (long email) In-Reply-To: <046f01cf7018$58647ba0$092d72e0$@gmail.com> References: <046f01cf7018$58647ba0$092d72e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, very interesting Chantal Lebrument EUROLINC 2014-05-15 10:33 GMT+02:00 michael gurstein : > One has to ask how long “Internet Governance” aided and abetted by the > active and willing collaboration of “civil society” will be able to > maintain its isolation from the broader issues of social justice and > economic inequality; particularly since there is increasing evidence of the > highly significant contribution which the Internet and digitization > processes are playing in exacerbating and accelerating the processes that > Piketty has so devastatingly documented. > > > > That NetMundial failed to even allow these issues to be raised, will I > think be seen as a highly significant historical failure. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto: > Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:55 PM > *To:* Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; futurework at vancouvercommunity.net > *Subject:* [Ottawadissenters] Thomas Piketty and His Critics (long email) > > > > > Thomas Piketty and His Critics > > - by Thomas B. Edsall > - May 14, 2014 NY Times• > > Many on the left see the popularity of Thomas Piketty’s new book, “Capital > in the Twenty-First Century,” as a sign of hope, but both optimists and > pessimists share a belief more telling than Piketty’s success: the idea > that the traditional Democratic economic agenda is dead. > > Piketty’s book reinforces the idea that the domestic policies liberals > advocate for are palliative, not curative — that, in essence, inequality is > here to stay. > > The problem of deepening inequality is enormous, Piketty writes: “Growth > can of course be encouraged by investing in education, knowledge and > nonpolluting technologies. But none of these will raise the rate of growth > to 4 or 5 percent a year.” > > Instead, he writes, “for countries at the world technological frontier” — > the United States, Northern Europe and parts of Asia — and “ultimately for > the planet as a whole – there is ample reason to believe that the growth > rate will not exceed 1-1.5 percent in the long run, no matter what economic > policies are adopted.” > > Piketty’s analysis articulates what many people on the Democratic left > feel intuitively, that a domestic tax, spending and regulatory agenda is > ineffective in the face of the power of globalized capital to grind down > wages and benefits. > > In Piketty’s view, the solution is a measure beyond the political reach of > any individual nation or international body, as they are now constituted: a > global wealth tax. Only such a tax “would contain the unlimited growth of > global inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that > cannot be sustained in the long run and that ought to worry even the most > fervent champions of the self-regulated market.” > > Piketty’s proposed global tax would set rates of 0.1 to 0.5 percent on > fortunes of less than 1 million euros ($1.37 million); 1 percent on assets > of 1 to 5 million euros ($1.37 million to $6.87 million); 2 percent on > holdings of 5 to 10 million euros ($6.87 million to $13.7 million); and a > sliding scale ultimately reaching 10 percent on fortunes of “several > hundred million or several billion euros.” > > It would be an understatement to say that a tax on wealth faces major > implementation problems. James Wetzler, the tax commissioner of New York > State during the administration of Mario Cuomo, wrote in an essaythat “absent aggressive policy intervention, the Western world appears to > be headed toward a plutocratic dystopia characterized by wealth inequality > approaching that of *ancien régime* France.” > > Wetzler added in an email that “to make the U.S. tax system more > progressive, we should focus on strengthening our existing income, estate > and gift taxes, not on a new starter like a wealth tax. A federal tax on > wealth would require a constitutional amendment, and we know a lot less > about its economic impact than we know about our existing taxes.” > > Further complicating implementation of a wealth tax, according to Wetzler, > is that it “must address complexities associated with the fact that so much > wealth is owned by corporations and other legal entities with dispersed > ownership.” > > And that’s only part of the problem. Who would run a super-national tax > collection agency? How would the taxes collected on assets owned by one > person but held in multiple countries be distributed? How would global > wealth tax supporters actually win the enactment of regulations that would > require transparency of ownership of real estate, of bank holdings and of > control of private corporations? > > Is it fair to describe Piketty’s analysis (as opposed to the upbeat man) > as pessimistic? First, Piketty declares that traditional liberal remedies – > education spending, worker protections, more progressive taxation, family > stabilization assistance – may be helpful at the margins, but inequality > will worsen “no matter what economic policies are.” Second, Piketty does > not offer a weapon other than a massively redistributive and politically > unachievable tax with which to battle this intensifying inequality. > > The unlikeliness of Piketty’s policy prescription becoming reality has not > placated the right. James Pethokoukis, the money and politics blogger for > the American Enterprise Institute, exemplifies the aversion to Piketty now > erupting among American conservatives. Pethokoukis warnsthat Piketty’s “soft Marxism,” if unchallenged, “will spread among the > clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future > policy battles will be waged. We’ve seen this movie before.” > > It’s not only the right that is disturbed; there is also opposition among > a number of progressive activists and liberal policy analysts who recognize > the dangers Piketty’s analysis poses to their agenda. > > While Piketty notes that “there is widespread discontent with the extreme > inequality and lack of opportunity and security,” he simultaneously > reinforces the “passivity and resignation” that comes out of “the failure > of the state and of center-left parties to do much to change what’s > happening,” Robert Kuttner, the founder and editor of The American > Prospect, told me in an email. And so, Kuttner wrote, “working class people > give up on it.” > > Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a > liberal economic think tank, took a harsher view of liberals’ attraction to > Piketty. In an email, Baker wrote that “a big part of the appeal is that it > allows people to say capitalism is awful but there is nothing that we can > do about it.” Baker, who has formulated a detailed domestic agendato fight inequality, worries “that many people will feel that they have > done their part after struggling through a lengthy book on economics, and > now they can go back to their vacation homes and say it’s all a shame.” > > It may be that Piketty is right that traditional liberal policies are > largely ineffective. There are, however, grounds to challenge this > pessimism. Support for this challenge can be found not only on the left, > but also on the center-right. > > Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist, contends in a reviewof Piketty’s book that “the idea of a global wealth tax is replete with > credibility and enforcement problems, aside from being politically > implausible.” > > Rogoff views evidence of growing inequality presented by Piketty and > others as “persuasive” and he proposes a number of alternative, > smaller-scale remedies to control disproportionate wealth accumulation. He > suggests a shift to a “relatively flat consumption tax, with a large > deductible for progressivity.” Consumption taxes apply to spending, as > opposed to income taxes that are levied on wages, benefits, profits from > sales, dividends and other gains. Why, Rogoff asks, should we “try to move > to an improbable global wealth tax when alternatives are available that are > growth friendly, raise significant revenue, and can be made progressive > through a very high exemption”? > > Rogoff cites a series of suggestionsdeveloped by Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard. > These include “the elimination of payroll taxesfor low-income workers, a cut in deductions for high-income workers, and > higher inheritance taxes.” > > Despite the criticism of Piketty from right, left and center, he has, by > shifting the focus from income to wealth, successfully transformed the > debate over inequality. > > His influence is reflected in two essays by Clive Crook, a financial > columnist at Bloomberg View. The first was an unrelentingly negative > reviewof Piketty’s book, the headline of which gives you the flavor of the rest: > “The Most Important Book Ever Is All Wrong.” > > “Every claim,” Crook argues, “is either unsupported or contradicted by > Piketty’s own data and analysis.” > > On May 11, however, Crook did an about face and wrote a very different > essay, > “Piketty’s Wealth Tax Isn’t a Joke.” > > “One idea that’s been roundly dismissed by fans and critics alike deserves > to be taken more seriously: the proposal for a global wealth tax,” Crook > writes, noting that “on equity and efficiency grounds, it makes sense to > tax wealth.” > > Crook, too, sees insurmountable difficulties for any entity that might try > to collect an annual wealth tax and argues instead for “moderate but > effective taxation of capital income combined with moderate but effective > taxation of inheritance, so that unrealized gains are brought back into the > tax base, either during the course of an investor’s life or at death.” > > In other words, centrists like Rogoff and Crook — in addition to liberals > determined to assault bastions of privilege — are beginning to take > proposals to restrain the growing concentration of wealth seriously. > > Both the shift of attention to wealth and the seriousness with which a > proposal to constrain the accumulation of wealth is being taken represent a > major change in the contemporary debate over inequality. Few Americans > appear to begrudge the multimillion dollar annual compensation of > entrepreneurial executives like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. But inherited and > unearned wealth does not command the same legitimacy. > > In fact, the emergence of what Piketty calls “patrimonial capitalism” — > concentrated wealth and political power passed on from generation to > generation in a class-based social order — runs directly counter to the > longstanding American commitment to equality of opportunity. Piketty has > laid the intellectual groundwork for a challenge to a social and political > order based on socioeconomic ranking by wealth stratification. > > Now we need effective politicians to articulate this challenge in ways > that resonate with a striving electorate determined to achieve a higher > standard of living through grit and hard work. Where is the level playing > field? Politicians who seek to gain traction on these issues face high > hurdles, but only those willing to risk confrontation can address the depth > of public discontent, anger and resentment. > Original URL: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/opinion/edsall-thomas-piketty-and-his-critics.html?emc=edit_ty_20140514&nl=opinion&nlid=4223025&_r=0 > > > > __._,_.___ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Thu May 15 04:42:20 2014 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:42:20 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) In-Reply-To: <6BD1E2B1-354D-43EB-ACEC-8207F8717529@glocom.ac.jp> References: <6BCF8CFB-AFCB-40BD-B550-3E9DC2BDA597@diplomacy.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6BD1E2B1-354D-43EB-ACEC-8207F8717529@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <53747DEC.5090007@diplomacy.edu> Thank you Adam. Yesterday, we had a very engaging discussion at the book presentation. I also learned that this book is becoming 'reference material' for many European officials who are getting involved in cyber/e/internet/digital/net policy issues. If you need any additional info please let me know. Regards, Jovan On 5/15/14 10:21 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On May 15, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> >> Jovan, >> >> can you resend the URL for the PDF of the book? The linke for the file is damaged. >> > > This? "Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace" > > Adam > > > > >> Thanks >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jovan Kurbalija >> Gesendet: Mi 14.05.2014 09:33 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Launch of the book on states and cyberspace (Tonight at 18.00 at the Geneva Internet Platform) >> >> If you are in Geneva, plese join us for the book launch 'Peacetime Regime of State Activities in Cyberspace'. it is the most comprehensive coverage of this subject that includes technical, legal, policy, and diplomatic aspects of state activities in cyberspace during peacetime. Book will be presented by Dr Katharina Ziolkowski, Federal Ministry of Defense (Germany) Here is the link for more information and electronic version of the book: http://giplatform.org/events/book-presentation-peacetime-regime-state-activities-cyberspace >> >> Regards, Jovan >> >> >> Jovan Kurbalija, Phd >> Director, DiploFoundation >> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland >> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | Mobile +41 (0) 797884226 >> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija >> >> Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD* Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland *Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226 *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija *The latest from Diplo:*today -- this week -- this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online courses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu May 15 04:48:59 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:48:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Removal In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang great question and observation. This is time for innovation. We might need a "search engine clearing house" ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 15 May 2014 10:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an individual > has to make a request to a search engine to remove the data/links to the > orginal data to the operator of a search engine, in this case Google. > > But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. If there > are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? > > Wolfgang > > > > > > . IDies she/he have t. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lorena > Jaume-Palasi > Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie GEORGES > Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret cour > européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google > > the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and > data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In > democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers > -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty > much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: > http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or > http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351 or > > http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and > many more. > This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights > higher than others... > Kind regards, > Lorena > > > 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : > > > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article > > > > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! Olivier, > > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest > > of people to know... > > > > In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will be at > the > > ECtHR... > > > > Best regards > > Marie > > > > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > > > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > > >> > > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the > > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very > welcome > > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > > >> > > > > > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise > > -- this is not the end > > > > > > < > > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> Olivier > > >> > > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > > >>> Bonjour, > > >>> Hi > > >>> > > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, > > >>> This judgement is very important > > >>> > > >>> Et en première page du New York Times > > >>> And In first page of the New York Times > > >>> > > >>> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > > >>> > > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > > >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english > > >>> > > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens > > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui > donc > > est applicable > > >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of > > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely > applicable > > to the search engine > > >>> > > >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte > > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) > lors > > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que > > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > > >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a > > person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears > in > > the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes > > undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria > > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > > >>> > > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > > >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in > > consideration > > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols > > >>> Great our spanish colleagues > > >>> > > >>> Bonne journée, > > >>> Have a nice day, > > >>> > > >>> Marie GEORGES > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance > (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ? > Newsletter< > http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> > ? Facebook ? Twitter ? > >Youtube > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu May 15 05:07:35 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:07:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> Message-ID: <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based > on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not > assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. Let's be specific. The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.” There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the determining factor. The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. One human right balanced by the other. Just like things should be. 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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Thu May 15 05:56:44 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:56:44 +0000 Subject: RFC compliance (was: RE: [governance] RE: PINGO) Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B866C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Thank you Wolfgang, indeed we have to keep asking for Open Standards also in the EP. An Access to Documents request has been filed wrt RFC-compliance and interoperability information: https://twitter.com/Sjig/status/466872196997328897 "Therefore, under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I would like to have access to all documents relating to interoperability with the EP's mail systems and the EP's policies and server settings for mailing lists, in particular relating to RFC 5321 section 3.9. In addition, I would like to have access to all documents relating to forecasts or plans on how these matters will change in the short (2014) and long term (8th legislature)." http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/interoperability_with_the_eps_ma/ Your attention is much appreciated. //Erik -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 12 May 2014 13:16 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; JOSEFSSON Erik Subject: AW: [governance] RE: PINGO Hi Erik, yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" para. of the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not legally binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build an alternative root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of services to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the checks and baalances are within the system, not in external oversight bodies. And yes it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC culture. It could be a source of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age. Best wishes and thanks for your mail. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON Erik Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO Dear Mr Kleinwächter, Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to use the NETmundial text! :-) I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph? OPEN STANDARDS Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"? Grateful for advice. I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots exist): http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-20140505/000043.html http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] PINGO Hi, here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 15 06:14:47 2014 From: avri at acm.org (avri) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 06:14:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Removal Message-ID: How much permanent information will need to be kept on order to guarantee a person is 'forgotten'. Will it be just their name and the result of the request. Will it require other identifying info to make sure that all of their info from all of their identities is also forgotten. Will the evidence they provide for the request need to be retained for some reason or time interval?  So many questions. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Mwendwa Kivuva Date:05/15/2014 04:48 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: Lorena Jaume-Palasi ,Marie GEORGES ,Adam Peake ,Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: Re: [governance] Removal Wolfgang great question and observation. This is time for innovation. We might need a "search engine clearing house" ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 15 May 2014 10:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi, I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an individual has to make a request to a search engine to remove the data/links to the orginal data to the operator of a search engine, in this case Google. But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. If there are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? Wolfgang . IDies she/he have t.  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lorena Jaume-Palasi Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie GEORGES Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351  or http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and many more. This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights higher than others... Kind regards, Lorena 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article > > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!!  Olivier, > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest > of people to know... > > In Europe( large meaning) if another  end is looked for  it will be at the > ECtHR... > > Best regards > Marie > > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > >> > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > >> > > > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise > -- this is not the end > > > > < > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > > > Adam > > > > > >> Olivier > >> > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >>> Bonjour, > >>>     Hi > >>> > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, > >>>     This judgement is very important > >>> > >>> Et en  première page du New York Times > >>>      And In first page of the New York Times > >>> > >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > >>> > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > >>>     Full judgement here attached in french and in english > >>> > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc > est applicable > >>>     It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable > to the search engine > >>> > >>> Google  doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > >>>     Google have to take of  the referenced documents related to a > person when  that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in > the answers to a query on  her/his name, where such information causes > undue private life on the basis of the  balance of interest criteria > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > >>> > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > >>>     This resumé is too short, so text to be  fully taken in > consideration > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols > >>>     Great our spanish colleagues > >>> > >>> Bonne journée, > >>>     Have a nice day, > >>> > >>> Marie GEORGES > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu  Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ? Newsletter  ? Facebook ? Twitter ? Youtube ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu May 15 06:25:05 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:25:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Removal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53749601.10801@digsys.bg> This is rather complex issue. Imagine, I am compiling a database about my neighbors. Doesn't matter why or for what purpose. It is *my* database. There are even laws to protect my rights over it. Now, one of my neighbors says they don't want their "personal information" such as their name in my database. Or, another piece of personal information, his telephone number. Now imagine, not only me, but few other neighbors compile databases for their neighbors... Get the idea? This is what we are trying to define here. Daniel On 15.05.14 13:14, avri wrote: > How much permanent information will need to be kept on order to > guarantee a person is 'forgotten'. Will it be just their name and the > result of the request. Will it require other identifying info to make > sure that all of their info from all of their identities is also > forgotten. Will the evidence they provide for the request need to be > retained for some reason or time interval? So many questions. > > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mwendwa Kivuva > Date:05/15/2014 04:48 (GMT-05:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Cc: Lorena Jaume-Palasi ,Marie GEORGES ,Adam Peake ,Olivier MJ > Crepin-Leblond > Subject: Re: [governance] Removal > > Wolfgang great question and observation. > > This is time for innovation. We might need a "search engine clearing > house" > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > On 15 May 2014 10:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an > individual has to make a request to a search engine to remove the > data/links to the orginal data to the operator of a search engine, > in this case Google. > > But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. > If there are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? > > Wolfgang > > > > > > . IDies she/he have t. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > im Auftrag von > Lorena Jaume-Palasi > Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; Marie GEORGES > Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret > cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google > > the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 > (privacy and > data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of > expression). In > democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as > peers > -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read > it pretty > much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: > http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or > http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351 or > http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and > many more. > This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human > rights > higher than others... > Kind regards, > Lorena > > > 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES >: > > > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article > > > > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! > Olivier, > > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and > Interest > > of people to know... > > > > In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will > be at the > > ECtHR... > > > > Best regards > > Marie > > > > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > > > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. > > >> > > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a > link on the > > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is > very welcome > > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! > > >> > > > > > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests > otherwise > > -- this is not the end > > > > > > < > > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> Olivier > > >> > > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: > > >>> Bonjour, > > >>> Hi > > >>> > > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, > > >>> This judgement is very important > > >>> > > >>> Et en première page du New York Times > > >>> And In first page of the New York Times > > >>> > > >>> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp > > >>> > > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais > > >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english > > >>> > > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de > traitement au sens > > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données > personnelles qui donc > > est applicable > > >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the > meaning of > > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely > applicable > > to the search engine > > >>> > > >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui > lui porte > > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie > privée) lors > > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne > alors que > > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale > > >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related > to a > > person when that information, lawful on the original web site, > appears in > > the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information > causes > > undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria > > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) > > >>> > > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. > > >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in > > consideration > > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols > > >>> Great our spanish colleagues > > >>> > > >>> Bonne journée, > > >>> Have a nice day, > > >>> > > >>> Marie GEORGES > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet > Governance > (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ? > Newsletter > ? Facebook ? Twitter ? > Youtube > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Thu May 15 06:53:20 2014 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 12:53:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Removal In-Reply-To: <53749601.10801@digsys.bg> References: <53749601.10801@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <6BA64D61-4A96-44ED-9B53-F6591B3A1867@noos.fr> No it is not a complex issue. Your own data base as long it is for personal use with no making available data to the public is a matter of exercising private life which is guarantied under HR. No control on that... If you disclose to the public here comes the balance between privacy (of others) and freedom of expression (your)....classical matter The real problem is that today this balance is not done the same way around the world. The freedom of expression limits are not the same. See,the private life of a public person is better protected in some countries than in others.. up to the point that in those countries where privacy is less protected you may kill politically a man when publishing an extra marital love affair, not in other countries Example in an other field of limits to freedom of expression : the nazis stuffs are forbidden to be sold in Europe (=nazi propaganda which is forbidden.....) which is not the case in USA. Yahoo ! had been condemned in France for letting a group of nazi sailing online those stuffs on its service. Yahoo ! asked the US Court if that French Court decision was applicable in USA. The US court said NO . Yahoo changed its rules regarding its status with regard to sailing on its online service so no longer such stuffs could appear on its service...I guess Yahoo! did not want to be prevented to make business on the european market (over 500 millions of people), knowing that after a French court it will be a German court which would condemned it= bad propaganda for its service Marie Le 15 mai 2014 à 12:25, Daniel Kalchev a écrit : > This is rather complex issue. > > Imagine, I am compiling a database about my neighbors. Doesn't matter why or for what purpose. It is *my* database. There are even laws to protect my rights over it. > Now, one of my neighbors says they don't want their "personal information" such as their name in my database. Or, another piece of personal information, his telephone number. > > Now imagine, not only me, but few other neighbors compile databases for their neighbors... > > Get the idea? > > This is what we are trying to define here. > > Daniel > > On 15.05.14 13:14, avri wrote: >> How much permanent information will need to be kept on order to guarantee a person is 'forgotten'. Will it be just their name and the result of the request. Will it require other identifying info to make sure that all of their info from all of their identities is also forgotten. Will the evidence they provide for the request need to be retained for some reason or time interval? So many questions. >> >> >> avri >> >> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mwendwa Kivuva >> Date:05/15/2014 04:48 (GMT-05:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> Cc: Lorena Jaume-Palasi ,Marie GEORGES ,Adam Peake ,Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> Subject: Re: [governance] Removal >> >> Wolfgang great question and observation. >> >> This is time for innovation. We might need a "search engine clearing house" >> >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> >> >> On 15 May 2014 10:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an individual has to make a request to a search engine to remove the data/links to the orginal data to the operator of a search engine, in this case Google. >> >> But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. If there are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> >> >> . IDies she/he have t. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lorena Jaume-Palasi >> Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie GEORGES >> Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google >> >> the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and >> data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In >> democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers >> -and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty >> much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: >> http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or >> http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351 or >> http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and >> many more. >> This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights >> higher than others... >> Kind regards, >> Lorena >> >> >> 2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : >> >> > Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article >> > >> > The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!! Olivier, >> > read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest >> > of people to know... >> > >> > In Europe( large meaning) if another end is looked for it will be at the >> > ECtHR... >> > >> > Best regards >> > Marie >> > >> > Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : >> > >> > > >> > > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> > > >> > >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. >> > >> >> > >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the >> > >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome >> > >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! >> > >> >> > > >> > > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise >> > -- this is not the end >> > > >> > > < >> > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten >> > > >> > > >> > > Adam >> > > >> > > >> > >> Olivier >> > >> >> > >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: >> > >>> Bonjour, >> > >>> Hi >> > >>> >> > >>> Cet arrêt est très important, >> > >>> This judgement is very important >> > >>> >> > >>> Et en première page du New York Times >> > >>> And In first page of the New York Times >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp >> > >>> >> > >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais >> > >>> Full judgement here attached in french and in english >> > >>> >> > >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens >> > de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc >> > est applicable >> > >>> It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of >> > Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable >> > to the search engine >> > >>> >> > >>> Google doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte >> > préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors >> > de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que >> > l'information sur le site d'origine est légale >> > >>> Google have to take of the referenced documents related to a >> > person when that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in >> > the answers to a query on her/his name, where such information causes >> > undue private life on the basis of the balance of interest criteria >> > (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) >> > >>> >> > >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. >> > >>> This resumé is too short, so text to be fully taken in >> > consideration >> > >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols >> > >>> Great our spanish colleagues >> > >>> >> > >>> Bonne journée, >> > >>> Have a nice day, >> > >>> >> > >>> Marie GEORGES >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance >> (GIG) Ohu >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> www.collaboratory.de ? >> Newsletter >> ? Facebook ? Twitter ? >> Youtube >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu May 15 06:55:11 2014 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 03:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Removal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1400151311.97709.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Are these Search Engines and Web-Archive Service Providers (who obtain publicly available information through web crawler(s)) have any data retention policy by law? So the data/information/links may be forgotten automatically, instead of initiating the removal request upon obsolescence or privacy issues.  Imran >________________________________ > From: avri >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >Sent: Thursday, 15 May 2014, 15:14 >Subject: Re: [governance] Removal > > > >How much permanent information will need to be kept on order to guarantee a person is 'forgotten'. Will it be just their name and the result of the request. Will it require other identifying info to make sure that all of their info from all of their identities is also forgotten. Will the evidence they provide for the request need to be retained for some reason or time interval?  So many questions. > > > > >avri > > >Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > >-------- Original message -------- >From: Mwendwa Kivuva >Date:05/15/2014 04:48 (GMT-05:00) >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >Cc: Lorena Jaume-Palasi ,Marie GEORGES ,Adam Peake ,Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >Subject: Re: [governance] Removal > > >Wolfgang great question and observation. > > >This is time for innovation. We might need a "search engine clearing house" > > > >______________________ >Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > >On 15 May 2014 10:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > >> >> >>Hi, >> >>I have one question: My understanding of the ruling is that an individual has to make a request to a search engine to remove the data/links to the orginal data to the operator of a search engine, in this case Google. >> >>But what about the other search engines: Yandex, Bing, Baidu etc. If there are 100 search engines, does she/he has to make 100 requests? >> >>Wolfgang >> >> >> >> >> >>. IDies she/he have t.  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lorena Jaume-Palasi >>Gesendet: Do 15.05.2014 02:50 >>An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie GEORGES >>Cc: Adam Peake; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>Betreff: Re: [governance] Information of general interest: arret cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Google >> >>the court's opinion is pretty clear: it states that art. 7 & 8 (privacy and >>data protection) are higher ranked than art. 11 (freedom of expression). In >>democracies no right is absolute: they all have to be balanced as peers >>-and not within a hierachy. So yes, Oliver is right and has read it pretty >>much in deep (as many other law-experts on data protection have done: >>http://mashable.com/2014/05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-europe-google/ or >>http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351  or >>http://www.cr-online.de/blog/2014/05/14/can-a-search-engine-be-private-by-default/and >>many more. >>This is heavy undemocratic stuff, once we begin to rank some human rights >>higher than others... >>Kind regards, >>Lorena >> >> >>2014-05-14 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marie GEORGES : >> >>> Yes Adam..quite interesting Viktor Mayer-Schönberger 's article >>> >>> The judgement is not at all in favor of censorship at all !!!!  Olivier, >>> read it in deep, balance of interest is made between privacy and Interest >>> of people to know... >>> >>> In Europe( large meaning) if another  end is looked for  it will be at the >>> ECtHR... >>> >>> Best regards >>> Marie >>> >>> Le 14 mai 2014 à 12:55, Adam Peake a écrit : >>> >>> > >>> > On May 14, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >>> > >>> >> This ruling spells the start of mass censorship in Europe. >>> >> >>> >> It basically means anyone could ask Google to take down a link on the >>> >> premise that the information is obsolete. I am sure this is very welcome >>> >> to crooks, fraudsters and other criminals. Well done! >>> >> >>> > >>> > writing in the UK Guardian, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger suggests otherwise >>> -- this is not the end >>> > >>> > < >>> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/omission-of-search-results-no-right-to-be-forgotten >>> > >>> > >>> > Adam >>> > >>> > >>> >> Olivier >>> >> >>> >> On 13/05/2014 13:23, Marie GEORGES wrote: >>> >>> Bonjour, >>> >>>     Hi >>> >>> >>> >>> Cet arrêt est très important, >>> >>>     This judgement is very important >>> >>> >>> >>> Et en  première page du New York Times >>> >>>      And In first page of the New York Times >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?hp >>> >>> >>> >>> Texte complet de l'arrêt , ci attaché, en français et en anglais >>> >>>     Full judgement here attached in french and in english >>> >>> >>> >>> Il reconnait Google search comme un responsable de traitement au sens >>> de la directive de 1995 sur la protection des données personnelles qui donc >>> est applicable >>> >>>     It recognizes Google (search) as controller in the meaning of >>> Directive of 95 on data protection,that is therefore completely applicable >>> to the search engine >>> >>> >>> >>> Google  doit retirer les informations sur une personne qui lui porte >>> préjudice ( y inclus sur base de la liberté d'information/vie privée) lors >>> de la réponse à qu'une requête sur le nom de cette personne alors que >>> l'information sur le site d'origine est légale >>> >>>     Google have to take of  the referenced documents related to a >>> person when  that information, lawful on the original web site, appears in >>> the answers to a query on  her/his name, where such information causes >>> undue private life on the basis of the  balance of interest criteria >>> (including related to freedom of information versus privacy....) >>> >>> >>> >>> Ce résumé est trop succinct...donc arrêt à lire entièrement.. >>> >>>     This resumé is too short, so text to be  fully taken in >>> consideration >>> >>> Bravo aux collègues espagnols >>> >>>     Great our spanish colleagues >>> >>> >>> >>> Bonne journée, >>> >>>     Have a nice day, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marie GEORGES >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ? Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance >>(GIG) Ohu >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>www.collaboratory.de ? >>Newsletter >> ? Facebook ? Twitter ? >>Youtube >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Thu May 15 14:15:07 2014 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:15:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Message-ID: <5375042B.20909@gih.com> Hello Norbert, in the examples on http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 (a politician, a man convicted of possessing child abuse images, a doctor with negative reviews) which right should outweigh the other? How would this be determined? Is this process basically going to be used by people who have something to hide? Kind regards, Olivier On 15/05/2014 11:07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > >> The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based >> on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not >> assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. > You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. > > Let's be specific. > > The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life > that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which > the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google > search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the > economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests > and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human > rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are > a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) > > The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: > “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular > reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, > that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the > preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of > its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in > question.” > > There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal > implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the > determining factor. > > The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU > law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal > implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. > > One human right balanced by the other. > > Just like things should be. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.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 rguerra at privaterra.org Thu May 15 15:13:15 2014 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:13:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Information_of_general_interest?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_arret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_agai?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nst_Google?= In-Reply-To: <5375042B.20909@gih.com> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> <5375042B.20909@gih.com> Message-ID: <0124D5EB-80E8-4A06-A821-45AF15E1A171@privaterra.org> Olivier, Norms and protections vary from country to country. Rights aren’t always obsolete in free and democratic societies. Free expression protections vary in the US, UK, Canada, France and Germany as do privacy, surveillance and environmental protection laws. The right to be forgotten is more complex a right then its simple name might imply. There’s a great deal of nuance and detail that are likely found in the recent CoE legal decision. If I’m not mistaken requests for search result removal (not data removal ) are adjudicated by a national level privacy oversight body (i.e. data protection agency) . I might be wrong, so do ask the EU lawyers on this list to clarify. regards Robert On May 15, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Hello Norbert, > > in the examples on http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 (a > politician, a man convicted of possessing child abuse images, a doctor > with negative reviews) which right should outweigh the other? How would > this be determined? Is this process basically going to be used by people > who have something to hide? > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 15/05/2014 11:07, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >> >>> The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based >>> on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not >>> assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. >> You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. >> >> Let's be specific. >> >> The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life >> that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which >> the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google >> search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the >> economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests >> and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human >> rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are >> a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) >> >> The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: >> “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular >> reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, >> that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the >> preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of >> its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in >> question.” >> >> There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal >> implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the >> determining factor. >> >> The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU >> law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal >> implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. >> >> One human right balanced by the other. >> >> Just like things should be. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu May 15 18:40:41 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 00:40:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Message-ID: Imho you haven't read the court's decision until the end, Norbert: (81) "However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users" Traduced into non-juridical English: the right to privacy and data protection (Art. 7&8) OVERRIDE AS A GENERAL RULE, the interest of internet users (Art. 11) Now THAT is not a balance, but a hierarchy. Best, Lorena 2014-05-15 11:07 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : > Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > > > The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based > > on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not > > assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. > > You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. > > Let's be specific. > > The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life > that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which > the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google > search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the > economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests > and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human > rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are > a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) > > The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: > “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular > reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, > that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the > preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of > its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in > question.” > > There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal > implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the > determining factor. > > The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU > law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal > implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. > > One human right balanced by the other. > > Just like things should be. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 15 19:02:09 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 01:02:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT: Thomas Piketty and His Critics (long email) In-Reply-To: <046f01cf7018$58647ba0$092d72e0$@gmail.com> References: <046f01cf7018$58647ba0$092d72e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 10:33 15/05/2014, michael gurstein wrote: >In Piketty's view, the solution is a measure beyond the political >reach of any individual nation or international body, as they are >now constituted: a global wealth tax. Only such a tax "would contain >the unlimited growth of global inequality of wealth, which is >currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained in the long >run and that ought to worry even the most fervent champions of the >self-regulated market." This tax has a name: inflation + wages proportional increases, the whole paid in bitcoins? 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 Thu May 15 19:24:56 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 01:24:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Information of general interest: arr et cour européenne Luxembourg, Spanish DPA against Googl e In-Reply-To: References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Message-ID: At 00:40 16/05/2014, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >Traduced into non-juridical English: the right to privacy and data >protection (Art. 7&8) OVERRIDE AS A GENERAL RULE, the interest of >internet users (Art. 11) >Now THAT is not a balance, but a hierarchy. If I read you correctly, out of any other context, what you write seems to state that the equal right of many should override the equal right of a single one. This sounds like US multi-stakeholderism. Quite opposed to TPP and TAFTA where the US wants that the equal right of a single coporation can override the equal rights of a people protected by its soverign democratic governement. Things may not be as simple as you imagine and apories do exist. This is why one calls on Judges. One of the basic democratic rule is also to not oppose Judge's decisions. Otherwise this is chaos. If you disagree, your resource is to change the law along a democractic process. Best jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu May 15 19:47:29 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 01:47:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Message-ID: Hi > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi < > lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote: > >> Imho you haven't read the court's decision until the end, Norbert: >> (81) "However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results >> could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the >> legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having >> access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main >> proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that >> interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 >> of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights >> protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest >> of internet users" >> > > >> Traduced into non-juridical English: the right to privacy and data >> protection (Art. 7&8) OVERRIDE AS A GENERAL RULE, the interest of internet >> users (Art. 11) >> > > It is problematic to just take one phrase and generalize it. That's not > how interpretation of judgments works. The wording "that interest" refers > to the previously mentioend "legitimate interest of internet users > potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations > such as that at issue in the main proceedings". This clearly shows that the > 'override' only applies in very specific situations. > > Note the reference to "in situations such as that at issue in the main > proceedings". The judgment is of very limited actual reach. > > "as a general rule" is a very concrete juridical indication - and it applies to all search engines. You are right, when you say that it is overall undertermined: I also see it like that and it does thus leave the door open for misuse. > Also, Mr. Costeja Gonzalez should have remembered the case of Barbra > Streisand and her Malibu home. Now the links to the judgement are here to > stay. Seeking to delete information online usually has a boomerang effect. > Therefore, lawyers should tell their clients to resist pressing such > claims. It's usually, if at all, a Pyrrhic victory. > > A Pyrrhic victory, indeed. :( Kind regards, Lorena > Kind regards > Matthias > > > > >> >> Now THAT is not a balance, but a hierarchy. >> Best, >> Lorena >> >> 2014-05-15 11:07 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : >> >>> Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >>> >>> > The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based >>> > on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not >>> > assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. >>> >>> You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. >>> >>> Let's be specific. >>> >>> The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life >>> that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which >>> the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google >>> search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the >>> economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests >>> and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human >>> rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are >>> a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) >>> >>> The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: >>> “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular >>> reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, >>> that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the >>> preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of >>> its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in >>> question.” >>> >>> There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal >>> implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the >>> determining factor. >>> >>> The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU >>> law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal >>> implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. >>> >>> One human right balanced by the other. >>> >>> Just like things should be. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet >> Governance (GIG) Ohu >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >> >> Youtube >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „Normative > Orders > ”, > University of Frankfurt/Main > Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, > University of Graz > Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human > Rights and Democracy, University of Graz > > Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main > EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 > 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland > > E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com > T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) > T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) > T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) > Blog | SSRN > | Google Scholar > | my new book > | Amazon Authors' Page > Twitter | Facebook > | Google+ > > Recent publications: > Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author) > Bestand und Wandel im Völkerrecht [Continuity and Change in Int'l Law] > (2014, co-editor) > Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, co-editor) > Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, editor) > The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) > European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-editor) > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 15 19:54:39 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 19:54:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Information_of_general_interest?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_arret_cour_europ=E9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_agai?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nst_Google?= In-Reply-To: References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Message-ID: My colleague Chris Pounder of Amberhawk training has done what I think is a commendably clear analysis of the opinion, here http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/. As he points out, some rights here are absolute, not in balance. cheers Stephanie Perrin On May 15, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > Imho you haven't read the court's decision until the end, Norbert: > (81) "However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users" > Traduced into non-juridical English: the right to privacy and data protection (Art. 7&8) OVERRIDE AS A GENERAL RULE, the interest of internet users (Art. 11) > > Now THAT is not a balance, but a hierarchy. > Best, > Lorena > > 2014-05-15 11:07 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : > Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > > > The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based > > on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not > > assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. > > You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. > > Let's be specific. > > The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life > that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which > the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google > search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the > economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests > and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human > rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are > a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) > > The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: > “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular > reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, > that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the > preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of > its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in > question.” > > There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal > implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the > determining factor. > > The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU > law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal > implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. > > One human right balanced by the other. > > Just like things should be. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu May 15 19:57:26 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 01:57:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Information_of_general_interest=3A_arr?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_cour_europ=C3=A9enne_Luxembourg=2C_Spanish_DPA_against_Googl?= =?UTF-8?Q?e?= In-Reply-To: References: <7881AC2F-48CB-4814-B7F7-7F5F73AC3993@noos.fr> <53732231.6040903@gih.com> <83A12BA3-7069-4F2E-A307-2A76B6DB5BCE@glocom.ac.jp> <9B183FC8-B733-4320-94A6-970FB4430E81@noos.fr> <20140515092549.75cce494@quill> <20140515110735.3dfd7a74@quill> Message-ID: yes Stephanie, it is seen by many data protection scholars the same way: no balance, absolute right on detriment of freedom of expression (I've sent some links early in the day and I can send more by request) Cheers, Lorena 2014-05-16 1:54 GMT+02:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > My colleague Chris Pounder of Amberhawk training has done what I think is > a commendably clear analysis of the opinion, here > http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/. > As he points out, some rights here are absolute, not in balance. > cheers Stephanie Perrin > > On May 15, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi > wrote: > > Imho you haven't read the court's decision until the end, Norbert: > (81) "However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results > could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the > legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having > access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main > proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that > interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 > of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights > protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest > of internet users" > Traduced into non-juridical English: the right to privacy and data > protection (Art. 7&8) OVERRIDE AS A GENERAL RULE, the interest of internet > users (Art. 11) > > Now THAT is not a balance, but a hierarchy. > Best, > Lorena > > 2014-05-15 11:07 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : > >> Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >> >> > The court has stated a precedent and the balance it makes is based >> > on the assumption, the right to privacy is higher ranked. It does not >> > assume that both rights are equal and that there needs a balance. >> >> You're IMO mis-reading the judgment. >> >> Let's be specific. >> >> The court says that in regard to facts about a person's personal life >> that are (at a given time) not of significant public interest and which >> the person does not wish to be immediately found by means of a Google >> search for their name, the right to privacy is higher ranked than the >> economic interest of Google (of course, since economic interests >> and rights of corporations are by definition ranked lower than human >> rights) and the rights of the public to access information (which are >> a logical consequence of a human right, so that is a serious point.) >> >> The court also explicitly says, as the final sentence of the ruling: >> “However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular >> reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, >> that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the >> preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of >> its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in >> question.” >> >> There you have it, depending on the circumstances (the particular legal >> implementation in EU law of) one or the other human right is to be the >> determining factor. >> >> The scope of application of (the particular legal implementation in EU >> law of) of one human right is determined by (the particular legal >> implementation in EU law of) the other human right, and vice versa. >> >> One human right balanced by the other. >> >> Just like things should be. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance > (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ > Youtube > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Fri May 16 05:10:47 2014 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 09:10:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Libraries and archives from around the world sign letter asking EU to engage constructively in copyright discussions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C7F5AE@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear Colleagues Apologies for cross-posting. A further development regarding the libraries and copyright issues I have previously posted on. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa .............................................................................. Fulfill the promise of the Innovation Union: Libraries, Archives and Research Institutions need balanced copyright laws http://www.ifla.org/node/8621 More than 60 library, archive and research institutions from countries across the European Union and internationally, representing over 650,000 information professionals, have joined together in a letter asking the European Union to engage constructively in text-based discussions at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on copyright exceptions for libraries and archives. The letter is available here: http://www.ifla.org/node/8619 Organisations from Spain, France, Poland, Italy, Slovakia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Armenia, Bulgaria, Russia and Sweden, as well as Australia, Canada and Colombia, have joined with European and international library and archive associations highlighting the copyright challenges preventing international research collaboration, preservation of cultural heritage and new forms of innovation. The signatories of the letter urge the European Union and its Member States to ensure that text-based discussion of an international instrument on copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives continues to be reflected in the mandate of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright & Related Rights (SCCR), and that the European Union engages constructively in these discussions. At the last meeting of the SCCR, the European Union tried to reverse conclusions that had been previously agreed by all of the world's countries at WIPO. The discussions at WIPO are important to: * Foster a cutting-edge, open international research culture * Ensure future researchers have access to Europe's digitized and born-digital heritage; and * Make European cultural heritage globally accessible More information about the 27th meeting of the SCCR can be found here. If your organization would like to endorse the letter, email Ellen Broad (ellen.broad at ifla.org). Please note it may take one day for your organisation's signature to be reflected on the webpage. Ellen Broad Manager, Digital Projects and Policy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands Phone: 0031703140884 Twitter: @ellenbroad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 16 06:49:04 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:49:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder Re: Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <20140516124904.19ed7147@quill> On Fri, 2 May 2014 23:11:00 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >> He spoke against an agreed and very longstanding civil society >> position, one that was affirmed only last week. >> >> He should retract his statement. On Fri, 2 May 2014 18:08:14 +0200, I replied: > Please provide a link or links with detailed information on > 1) what you claim was affirmed last week, and on > 2) through what process it was affirmed. Adam, I'm still waiting for the essential specific information on the claimed affirmation of “an agreed and very longstanding civil society position”. 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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it Fri May 16 12:55:53 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:55:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Deadline Extension: 2014 IEEE International Workshop on Autonomic Cloud Cybersecurity (ACC 2014) Message-ID: <012601cf7127$b29eab80$17dc0280$@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 Imperial College, London - September 8, 2014 ============================================================================ ===== *************** EXTENDED SUBMISSION DEADLINE: JUNE 1, 2014 ********************** =========== 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 ================== - Extended paper submission: June 1, 2014 - Extended author notification: June 21, 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 **************** Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani, sui loro migliori progetti. Sostiene la libera ricerca. Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro. Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani. Università degli Studi di Milano codice fiscale 80012650158 http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 17 14:28:02 2014 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 20:28:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil da Internet Message-ID: <5377AA32.1080507@panamo.eu> A French translation with an article presenting the law on: http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/05/17/cadre-droits-civils-internet-bresil/ Thanks Brasil! @+, fraternel regards, Dominique -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 19 08:40:20 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:40:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG workshop evaluations Message-ID: <63478854-0B22-4F98-8485-4BF8ACFD76B6@glocom.ac.jp> A spreadsheet with MAG evaluations of workshop proposals can be downloaded from this link attachments might download as .bin, change the file extension to .xsls. MAG member's comments don't seem consistent from one proposal to the next. Disappointing to see from Secretariat's email that "12 open forum requests + 7 Dynamic coalition requests + 4 best practice sessions" will be given slots with seemingly no evaluation or criteria. But perhaps MAG will tighten things up during this meeting in Paris. 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 iza at anr.org Mon May 19 09:09:06 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:09:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF MAG workshop evaluations In-Reply-To: <63478854-0B22-4F98-8485-4BF8ACFD76B6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <63478854-0B22-4F98-8485-4BF8ACFD76B6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Here is the link to the Compilation of ALL workshop proposals, some of you must have already known, but just for your convenience again. http://wgig.org/info/Workshop_Proposal_List.2014v3.pdf It is more than 16 Mb, so that I cannot attach it here. izumi 2014-05-19 21:40 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : > A spreadsheet with MAG evaluations of workshop proposals can be downloaded > from this link > > < > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2014-May/001502.html > > > > attachments might download as .bin, change the file extension to .xsls. > > MAG member's comments don't seem consistent from one proposal to the next. > Disappointing to see from Secretariat's email that "12 open forum requests > + 7 Dynamic coalition requests + 4 best practice sessions" will be given > slots with seemingly no evaluation or criteria. But perhaps MAG will > tighten things up during this meeting in Paris. > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon May 19 09:32:08 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:32:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 Message-ID: We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open Consultation/MAG meeting. The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive than most felt it should be. But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked to be the coordinator. Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session Just my informal and sketchy observation. Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. izumi -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 19 14:17:49 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:17:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] REMOTE PARTICIPATION/WEBCAST: #IGF USA Planning Meeting 2pm EDT today #igfusa @isocdc Message-ID: This has just started. If you are visiting later, go to the webcast and you can back down the timeline. joly posted: "Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm EDT a planning meeting for the forthcoming Internet Governance Forum USA (IGF-USA) meeting, scheduled for July 2014, will be held in Washington DC. IGF-USA is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate con" [image: IGF-USA]Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm EDT a planning meeting for the forthcoming *Internet Governance Forum USA* (IGF-USA) meeting, scheduled for *July 2014*, will be held in Washington DC. IGF-USA is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate constructive discussions about the future of the Internet. It provides a domestic forum in the US to engage civil society, government, technologists, research scientists, industry and academia, helping to create partnerships, coalitions and dialogues that demonstrate best practices and help move policy forward. IGF-USA 2014 seeks to develop new momentum and dialogue on the key issues under consideration in the field. Remote participation in the meeting is available via webex. The meeting will also be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel. *What*: IGF USA Planning Meeting *Where*: Washington DC *When*: Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm-4:30pm EDT | 1800-2030 UTC *Webex*: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf832feb75dc5008d8e8c46be0cd4ecc6(pass: igfusa) *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014-planning *Twitter*: #igfusa Comment See all comments *Remember* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6637 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lsh at asc.upenn.edu Mon May 19 14:50:16 2014 From: lsh at asc.upenn.edu (Laura Henderson) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:50:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Proposals on Internet Policy Message-ID: The Center for Global Communication Studies is pleased to announce a call for proposals for its Internet Policy Observatory to organizations and individuals conducting research on the conditions, processes, and stakeholders that drive the development of internet policies at the national, regional, and international level. This call is particularly relevant to organizations and individuals interested in what countries do to influence the global internet, what we are calling the 'foreign policies of the internet.' Particular attention will be paid to proposals that look beyond the policies and narratives of European and North American actors to examine how 'emerging' actors and countries are influencing the debate. The thematic focus of the proposals may include, but is not limited to, one of the general areas: *Who and what are the conditions, processes, and stakeholders that are influencing the development of the internet nationally, regionally, and globally? *How are countries and other strategic global players using the internet to reach foreign policy objectives? *The effects of Snowden and the NSA revelations on the creation of internet policies and narratives about the internet in national/regional/and international contexts *An analysis of ‘multistakeholder’ internet governance fora and the stakeholders involved in the global internet governance debate *How normative frameworks and narratives about the internet are “exported” from one country or region to others *Cross-national or national surveys of internet users’ perceptions of key aspects of internet policy including trust, security, and censorship. *The negotiation between public and private governance online. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until June 6, 2014. For more information about this call and submission guidelines please see http://globalnetpolicy.org/our-research/call-for-proposals/ Laura Schwartz-Henderson Research Project Manager Center For Global Communication Studies Annenberg School for Communication University of Pennsylvania 215-898-9727 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon May 19 15:17:02 2014 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 20:17:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016a01cf7396$eaa31a40$bfe94ec0$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Thank you very much Izumi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : lundi 19 mai 2014 14:32 À : governance; Objet : [governance] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open Consultation/MAG meeting. The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive than most felt it should be. But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked to be the coordinator. Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session Just my informal and sketchy observation. Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. izumi -- --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon May 19 15:49:59 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:49:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi. (Now I know there is the first Izumi and the second Izumi, who is a female). A bunch of us were remotely participating and yes, NetMundial was the refrain. And I saw that by the by, the issue of being concrete with outcomes is gaining traction. Do you think it is possible to remotely contribute to the work of the outcome group? Or only MAG folks are in? Just asking N On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the > morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open > Consultation/MAG meeting. > > The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive > than most felt it should be. > > But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to > explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair > asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, > to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. > > Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked > to be the coordinator. > > Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session > > Just my informal and sketchy observation. > > Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. > > izumi > > > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon May 19 15:55:49 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 12:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] REMOTE PARTICIPATION/WEBCAST: #IGF USA Planning Meeting 2pm EDT today #igfusa @isocdc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1400529349.69685.YahooMailNeo@web121404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi I volunteer with * Panels. * Inclusion of all Stake Holders * Topic Leader   Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Monday, May 19, 2014 11:21 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: This has just started. If you are visiting later, go to the webcast and you can back down the timeline. joly posted: "Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm EDT a planning meeting for the forthcoming Internet Governance Forum USA (IGF-USA) meeting, scheduled for July 2014, will be held in Washington DC. IGF-USA is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate con" Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm EDT a planning meeting for the forthcoming Internet Governance Forum USA (IGF-USA) meeting, scheduled for July 2014, will be held in Washington DC. IGF-USA is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate constructive discussions about the future of the Internet. It provides a domestic forum in the US to engage civil society, government, technologists, research scientists, industry and academia, helping to create partnerships, coalitions and dialogues that demonstrate best practices and help move policy forward. IGF-USA 2014 seeks to develop new momentum and dialogue on the key issues under consideration in the field. Remote participation in the meeting is available via webex. The meeting will also be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel.   What: IGF USA Planning Meeting Where: Washington DC When: Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm-4:30pm EDT | 1800-2030 UTC Webex: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf832feb75dc5008d8e8c46be0cd4ecc6 (pass: igfusa) Webcast: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014-planning Twitter: #igfusa Comment    See all comments Remember  http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6637 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon May 19 16:19:25 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1400530765.69601.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> thank you  Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Monday, May 19, 2014 12:51 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Thanks Izumi. (Now I know there is the first Izumi and the second Izumi, who is a female). A bunch of us were remotely participating and yes, NetMundial was the refrain.  And I saw that by the by, the issue of being concrete with outcomes is gaining traction. Do you think it is possible to remotely contribute to the work of the outcome group? Or only MAG folks are in? Just asking N On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open Consultation/MAG meeting. > > >The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive than most felt it should be. > > >But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. > > >Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked to be the coordinator. > > >Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session > > >Just my informal and sketchy observation. > > >Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. > > >izumi > > > > > > > >-- > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 20 03:45:29 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:45:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategy References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422D3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, FYI: ICANN has started to discuss its five-year-strategy plan. I invite everybody to make comments, in particular members of this list who have been critical with regard to ICANNs globalization and accountability status. This is the place to articulate concerns and to make concrete and constructive proposals how to enhance ICANNs´s way to implement the multistakeholder model and to become a center of operational excellence. http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/feedback-encouraged-on-icanns-draft-five-year-strategic-plan-fy-2016-2020/ Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 20 05:47:56 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:47:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 In-Reply-To: <1400530765.69601.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1400530765.69601.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Here follows is the informal WG meeting report on NETmundial lessons, Mark Carell prepared. izumi ----- MEETING REPORT OF MAG AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON IGF OUTPUTS , UNESCO,19 MAY 2014 Moderator: Mark Carvell (UK) The group met yesterday evening for 90 minutes of brainstorming on developing and enhancing IGF outcomes. About 35 members participated. Discussion focussed on the following: - Importance of capitalising on the intellectual leadership of the IGF through knowledge sharing of Internet governance challenges and successful best practice and their impact on capacity building in particular; - Building on CSTD WG recommendations and the momentum created by the mandate on specific issues from NETmundial; - Improving existing reporting mechanisms to better package, explain and make use of the wealth of knowledge and information from IGF discussions; - The importance of issues progressing though the succession from one IGF to the next IGF; - Creating mechanisms for enhancing accessibility of IGF data and reviewing improvements as a result of IGF discussions so that for example policymakers can identify solutions that could be applied to their particular situations; - Making IGF preparatory processes more inclusive and participatory in order to identify more rigorously key issues and gear up ahead of the IGF – learning from the NETmundial experience; - Developing proactive inter-sessional activity in particular more effective linkages with the national and regional IGFs; - Relevance of Tunis Agenda paragraph 72 (g) on recommendations relating to emerging issues and steps to be undertaken to transpose the discussions into practical steps – e.g toolkits for policymakers tailored to local conditions and needs; - Modalities for IGF addressing issues identified at NETmundial in a structured way including the use of preparatory concise briefing documents and online interaction for inputs; - Holding a dedicated session in the IGF programme on outcomes; - Reinvigorating the “Friends of the IGF” as a contributor to the communications strategy. There was general agreement that allocating substantial amounts of IGF time to negotiating was undesirable. There was recognition that the IGF has substantially improved the quality of internet governance discussions. Several proposals were made specifically on developing output mechanisms, communication and increasing interactive preparatory and follow up processes. There were several contributions stating that dissemination of information provided at IGF sessions and workshops notably the Chair’s report and workshop reports could be improved in order to communicate more effectively areas of agreement and divergence, and identifying issues not resolved. A working group could be set up to implement these improvements. There were also suggestions with regard to creating interactive repositories of information and data and enhancing the ability to interact with the IGF website. Survey mechanisms could also be developed. With regard to sustaining momentum from NETmundial, a series of workshops or special sessions relating to NETmundial topics should be added to the Istanbul IGF programme. Documents relating to these would be posted on the IGF website for comments and inputs. A roundtable event immediately prior to the IGF should be held and the related IGF workshop reports posted online as an IGF package of outputs. 2014-05-20 5:19 GMT+09:00 shaila mistry : > thank you > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > President > Stem Institute > Transforming Ideals into Action > > President > *JAYCO* MMI > *Input Technology With A Human Touch* > > www.jaycopanels.com > Tel: 951 738 2000 > > MWOSB > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! * > On Monday, May 19, 2014 12:51 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > > Thanks Izumi. (Now I know there is the first Izumi and the second Izumi, > who is a female). > > A bunch of us were remotely participating and yes, NetMundial was the > refrain. And I saw that by the by, the issue of being concrete with > outcomes is gaining traction. > > Do you think it is possible to remotely contribute to the work of the > outcome group? Or only MAG folks are in? > > Just asking > > N > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the > morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open > Consultation/MAG meeting. > > The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive > than most felt it should be. > > But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to > explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair > asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, > to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. > > Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked > to be the coordinator. > > Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session > > Just my informal and sketchy observation. > > Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. > > izumi > > > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 20 19:35:35 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:35:35 +1000 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? Message-ID: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue May 20 19:58:15 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 23:58:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> Message-ID: Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. Mawaki MSm = multistakeholderism MSr = multistakeholder ================= Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I'm interested to know people's thoughts about the advisability of > civil society promoting the "rough consensus" model of decision making as > differing from what I will call "UN consensus". > > "UN consensus" is what we see happening in most UN decision making > processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at > NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against > adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties > present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. > > I think it is reasonable to say that "UN consensus" has been stifling in > many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. > > Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the > NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on > surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in > the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands > of a small number of government and business interests. > > In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the > desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better > reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN > style consensus. > > However, there is a danger here - minorities are not necessarily protected > in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus > decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. > However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus > in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. > > So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote > here. > > > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 20 21:08:52 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:08:52 +1000 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> Message-ID: <4D09850805394F66A96C42CB798EB2CB@Toshiba> Hi Mawaki, > The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. I think Net Mundial made a good but imperfect attempt at this. But equally, is there any way with MSism we can improve on the serious problems that exist with UN system? There are countless examples within current international systems of nation state votes being bought by promises of increased foreign aid etc, and of nation state positions being determined by corporate interests. So we already have a system which is quite flawed, and is stifled whenever it attempts to make any change that affects the status quo. My question is can we improve on it? I don ‘t yet see how any system or systemic change is going to completely stop powerful interests dictating policy to less powerful ones. However, I am wondering whether rough consensus is going to be useful or dangerous in this context. Ian From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:58 AM To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. Mawaki MSm = multistakeholderism MSr = multistakeholder ================= Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 21 00:55:52 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 05:55:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: <4D09850805394F66A96C42CB798EB2CB@Toshiba> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <4D09850805394F66A96C42CB798EB2CB@Toshiba> Message-ID: <03f501cf74b0$fcc02270$f6406750$@gmail.com> Underlying that question, Ian is a rather more fundamental one which equally needs to be resolved and that is who is the “we” that you are presenting yourself as speaking from/on behalf of. Is it the 50-100 or so of those calling themselves “civil society” active in these discussions? Is it the several hundreds who present themselves as speaking for “civil society” at discussions like NetMundial/IGF. Is it the somewhat larger but still very small numbers of those involved in the civil society networks aware of and concerned with these issues and being represented (or not) in forums such as NetMundial. Or is it the broad range of “civil society” who in their vast and increasing numbers have a direct stake in these issues but have yet to fully recognize their significance in the midst of the range of other equally crucial issues that they are currently confronting at all levels. Depending on how you/others choose to answer and respond through your actions to that question a different result for your question is likely to entail. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:09 AM To: Mawaki Chango; Internet Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? Hi Mawaki, > The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. I think Net Mundial made a good but imperfect attempt at this. But equally, is there any way with MSism we can improve on the serious problems that exist with UN system? There are countless examples within current international systems of nation state votes being bought by promises of increased foreign aid etc, and of nation state positions being determined by corporate interests. So we already have a system which is quite flawed, and is stifled whenever it attempts to make any change that affects the status quo. My question is can we improve on it? I don ‘t yet see how any system or systemic change is going to completely stop powerful interests dictating policy to less powerful ones. However, I am wondering whether rough consensus is going to be useful or dangerous in this context. Ian From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:58 AM To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. Mawaki MSm = multistakeholderism MSr = multistakeholder ================= Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 21 01:14:54 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:44:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: <03f501cf74b0$fcc02270$f6406750$@gmail.com> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <4D09850805394F66A96C42CB798EB2CB@Toshiba> <03f501cf74b0$fcc02270$f6406750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52487CDE-A18C-4813-8B08-02785BFB5846@hserus.net> The number of disparate factions in civil society (some of which are politically driven rather than focused on anything that remotely approaches development) are just what make adoption of a UN consensus model among civil society groups untenable. Rough consensus might work .. After that, the rest of the "broad range of civil society" might indeed be affected by igov issues but they either don't know or don't quite care .. Like a charity that works on ensuring that kids in a drought stricken part of India have access to food and healthcare, or one that operates an animal shelter, would care that the internet "works" in that they can access mail / IM / their website, but the petty backbiting that characterizes the average civil society "discussion" here would be of little or no relevance to them. Anyone who claims to speak on their behalf had better be very sure that he represents their interests rather than his own. --srs (iPad) > On 21-May-2014, at 10:25, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Underlying that question, Ian is a rather more fundamental one which equally needs to be resolved and that is who is the “we” that you are presenting yourself as speaking from/on behalf of. > > Is it the 50-100 or so of those calling themselves “civil society” active in these discussions? > > Is it the several hundreds who present themselves as speaking for “civil society” at discussions like NetMundial/IGF. > > Is it the somewhat larger but still very small numbers of those involved in the civil society networks aware of and concerned with these issues and being represented (or not) in forums such as NetMundial. > > Or is it the broad range of “civil society” who in their vast and increasing numbers have a direct stake in these issues but have yet to fully recognize their significance in the midst of the range of other equally crucial issues that they are currently confronting at all levels. > > Depending on how you/others choose to answer and respond through your actions to that question a different result for your question is likely to entail. > > M > > > > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:09 AM > To: Mawaki Chango; Internet Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > Hi Mawaki, > > > The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. > > I think Net Mundial made a good but imperfect attempt at this. > > But equally, is there any way with MSism we can improve on the serious problems that exist with UN system? There are countless examples within current international systems of nation state votes being bought by promises of increased foreign aid etc, and of nation state positions being determined by corporate interests. So we already have a system which is quite flawed, and is stifled whenever it attempts to make any change that affects the status quo. My question is can we improve on it? > > I don ‘t yet see how any system or systemic change is going to completely stop powerful interests dictating policy to less powerful ones. However, I am wondering whether rough consensus is going to be useful or dangerous in this context. > > Ian > > > > > > > > From: Mawaki Chango > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:58 AM > To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. > > Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. > > Mawaki > > MSm = multistakeholderism > MSr = multistakeholder > > ================= > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder and Owner > DIGILEXIS > http://www.digilexis.com > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. > > “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. > > I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. > > Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. > > In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. > > However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. > > So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. > > > > Ian Peter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed May 21 01:37:49 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 07:37:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> Dear all   Ian Wrote : < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.>   I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ?   The answer is in the question ...   Greetings   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 > De : "Mawaki Chango" > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. > Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. > Mawaki   > MSm = multistakeholderism MSr = multistakeholder ================= Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com  > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection.  So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here.   Ian Peter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 21 01:51:21 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:21:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> Message-ID: What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do individual CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there solely to demand a stake? To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they serve? The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and others do spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as their own interests. Quite often though not always these interests may be congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a consensus. --srs (iPad) > On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear all > > > > Ian Wrote : > > < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.> > > > > I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? > > > > The answer is in the question ... > > > > Greetings > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 > > De : "Mawaki Chango" > > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > > > > Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. > > > > Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. > > > > Mawaki > > > > MSm = multistakeholderism > MSr = multistakeholder > > ================= > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder and Owner > DIGILEXIS > http://www.digilexis.com > > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> > >> I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. >> >> “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. >> >> I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. >> >> Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. >> >> In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. >> >> However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. >> >> So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 21 02:44:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 07:44:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> Message-ID: <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> This is correct I think and a strategically important observation. However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it’s stake/overall strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible. For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or from a normative perspective). This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear basis for establishing a normative representivity… It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic framework) is so risky. In the absence of those linkages back from CS either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their own behalf. They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized representations from other “stakeholders” . The inevitable outcome from this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is significantly at risk. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK Cc: Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do individual CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there solely to demand a stake? To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they serve? The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and others do spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as their own interests. Quite often though not always these interests may be congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a consensus. --srs (iPad) On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: Dear all Ian Wrote : < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.> I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? The answer is in the question ... Greetings Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 > De : "Mawaki Chango" > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. > Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. > Mawaki > MSm = multistakeholderism MSr = multistakeholder ================= Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. Ian Peter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 21 03:01:18 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 12:31:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1461d954f98.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed? On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: > This is correct I think and a strategically important observation. > However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible > strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it’s stake/overall > strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible. > > > > For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an > individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its > linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or > from a normative perspective). > > > This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the IG > context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear basis > for establishing a normative representivity… > > > > It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic > framework) is so risky. In the absence of those linkages back from CS > either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of > CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their > own behalf. They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. > that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized > representations from other “stakeholders” . The inevitable outcome from > this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential > dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is > significantly at risk. > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Cc: Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > > > What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do individual > CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there solely to demand a > stake? To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are they there to > genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they serve? > > > > The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and others do > spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as > their own interests. Quite often though not always these interests may be > congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a consensus. > > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear all > > > > Ian Wrote : > > < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as > well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.> > > > > I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how > important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more > concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for > challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the > "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? > > > > The answer is in the question ... > > > > Greetings > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 > > De : "Mawaki Chango" A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? > > > > Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else > regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and > organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. > That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, > can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as > foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. > > > > > Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. > > > > > > Mawaki > > > > > MSm = multistakeholderism > > MSr = multistakeholder > > > > > ================= > > Mawaki Chango, PhD > > Founder and Owner > > DIGILEXIS > > http://www.digilexis.com > > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil > society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as > differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. > > “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making > processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at > NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against > adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties > present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. > > I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in > many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. > Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the > NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on > surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in > the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands > of a small number of government and business interests. > In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the > desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better > reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN > style consensus. > > However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected > in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus > decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. > However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus > in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. > > So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 21 04:05:07 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:05:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] A report of adhoc MAG WG on IGF Improvement Message-ID: Day 3 of MAG Open consultation just started. (I did not feel good and skipped the afternoon discussion yesterday) Here attached is a memo just circulated at MAG list, to show what kind of thinking is going on among MAG members now. A report from small adhoc Working Group on IGF improvement, convened both on May 19 and 20. There will be a Working Group established to work on this before Istanbul. The result will be presented and discussed at the Open Forum on IGF, in Istanbul, and then the result will be brought forward for the preparation of IGF 2015. That's the outline. Read more details, there. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ImprovingIGFOutcome1.1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 122530 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Wed May 21 04:18:23 2014 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 12:18:23 +0400 Subject: [governance] on Workshop on 'Big Data and Human Rights' Message-ID: <1620081400660303@web18j.yandex.ru> Dear colleagues! Maybe it is possible to raise a motion to save the big data WS on agenda? on base of #26 I could simply explain the reason, that Big Data is one of the most important topics, and there is no workshops on this matter passed. Also, our proposal #26 is coming from the academic community, which could be recognized as a separate stakeholder group. ' Our organizers will satisfy the Secretariat on the quality of WS What do you think about that? Thank you! With kind regards, Andrey Shcherbovich -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 05:19:19 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:19:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? In-Reply-To: <1461d954f98.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> <1461d954f98.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Peut-etre qu'il nous faudra passer par les etats-generaux de la societe civile globale/mondiale sur la gouvernance de l'internet??? Ian, the thing is I find it hard to reply yes or no to your question. Yes, it may be better at least on some issues for governments to replace what you call "UN consensus" by rough consensus (among themselves) for their decision-making. But how to get to a place where we could apply rough consensus among multiple stakeholders including governments at global level and on "equal footing"? That's the challenge and that will require more work, including maybe some level of constitution (literally and "politically") for a global CS voice in the processes at hand. Note that the above will require that within global CS itself, all members (whether individuals or entities) are recognized on equal footing. Thanks, Mawaki ------- Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed? > > On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> This is correct I think and a strategically important observation. >> However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible >> strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it's stake/overall >> strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible. >> >> >> >> For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an >> individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its >> linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or >> from a normative perspective). >> >> >> >> This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the >> IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear >> basis for establishing a normative representivity... >> >> >> >> It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic >> framework) is so risky. In the absence of those linkages back from CS >> either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of >> CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their >> own behalf. They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. >> that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized >> representations from other "stakeholders" . The inevitable outcome from >> this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential >> dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is >> significantly at risk. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Suresh >> Ramasubramanian >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> *Cc:* Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >> >> >> >> What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do >> individual CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there solely >> to demand a stake? To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are >> they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they >> serve? >> >> >> >> The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and others do >> spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as >> their own interests. Quite often though not always these interests may be >> congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a >> consensus. >> >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> Ian Wrote : >> >> < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as >> well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.> >> >> >> >> I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how >> important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more >> concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for >> challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the >> "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? >> >> >> >> The answer is in the question ... >> >> >> >> Greetings >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 >> > De : "Mawaki Chango" >> > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >> > >> > >> >> Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else >> regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and >> organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. >> That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, >> can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as >> foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. >> >> >> > >> >> Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. >> >> >> > >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> > >> >> MSm = multistakeholderism >> >> MSr = multistakeholder >> >> >> ================= >> >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> >> Founder and Owner >> >> DIGILEXIS >> >> http://www.digilexis.com >> > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> > >> >> I'm interested to know people's thoughts about the advisability of civil >> society promoting the "rough consensus" model of decision making as >> differing from what I will call "UN consensus". >> >> "UN consensus" is what we see happening in most UN decision making >> processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at >> NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against >> adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties >> present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. >> >> I think it is reasonable to say that "UN consensus" has been stifling in >> many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. >> >> Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the >> NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on >> surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in >> the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands >> of a small number of government and business interests. >> >> In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the >> desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better >> reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN >> style consensus. >> >> However, there is a danger here - minorities are not necessarily >> protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough >> consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some >> viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing >> rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant >> protection. >> >> So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote >> here. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 21 11:00:07 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 3 Message-ID: After finishing the workshop evaluation, the Open?MAG consultation meeting is approaching its end, and last 1 hour was spent for the discussion around how to Improve IGF and its outcome, responding to the NETmundial challenges, and the room could not make a consensus. 1) Organize a session on Day 0 2) Organize an additional workshop on this issue 3) Discuss inside the Main Session on Day 3. 1) is not feasible considering other community events already prepared 2) is not acceptable as MAG should not by itself host IGF centric event 2) is not acceptable because it is weak and the subject deserve more attention. Chair asked to stop the discussion now at this point and continue online. We have 30 minute to go. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Thu May 22 14:36:24 2014 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 14:36:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus LIMITATIONS In-Reply-To: References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> <1461d954f98.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <537E43A8.1070004@communisphere.com> An article in today's New York Times reviewing a book by former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is headlined "Geithner Depicts Consensus in Crisis, Not Vision." Focusing on consensus one paragraph states a key failure of the Obama Administration: "It’s an elevation of consensus, rather than what’s right, as a mode of governance. And there are moments that call for vision and ambition." I read the review as saying that consensus, at best, is Milquetoast. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 5/21/2014 5:19 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Peut-etre qu'il nous faudra passer par les etats-generaux de la > societe civile globale/mondiale sur la gouvernance de l'internet??? > > Ian, the thing is I find it hard to reply yes or no to your question. > Yes, it may be better at least on some issues for governments to > replace what you call "UN consensus" by rough consensus (among > themselves) for their decision-making. But how to get to a place where > we could apply rough consensus among multiple stakeholders including > governments at global level and on "equal footing"? That's the > challenge and that will require more work, including maybe some level > of constitution (literally and "politically") for a global CS voice in > the processes at hand. > > Note that the above will require that within global CS itself, all > members (whether individuals or entities) are recognized on equal footing. > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > ------- > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder and Owner > DIGILEXIS > http://www.digilexis.com > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed? > > On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" > wrote: > >> This is correct I think and a strategically important >> observation. However, in order to be able to make effective use >> of these possible strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be >> clear what it’s stake/overall strategic position is so that it >> can take tactical advantage where possible. >> >> For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an >> individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its >> linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an >> organizational or from a normative perspective). >> >> This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights >> in the IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR >> there was a clear basis for establishing a normative representivity… >> >> It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a >> democratic framework) is so risky. In the absence of those >> linkages back from CS either to significant organizational or >> normative anchors then the role of CS in MS processes is simply >> (CS) individuals acting more or less on their own behalf. They >> are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. that such >> a situation might present and unequally faced with organized >> representations from other “stakeholders” . The inevitable >> outcome from this is that any negotiating environment is clearly >> fraught with potential dysfunction and thus the likelihood of >> equitable overall outcomes is significantly at risk. >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] *On Behalf Of >> *Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> *Cc:* Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >> >> What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do >> individual CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there >> solely to demand a stake? To put forth a purely political point >> of view? Or are they there to genuinely represent the interests >> of the constituency they serve? >> >> The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and >> others do spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent >> what they see as their own interests. Quite often though not >> always these interests may be congruent with civil society - >> which is what helps in establishing a consensus. >> >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> > wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> Ian Wrote : >> >> < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and >> organized as well as how their voice factors in the process >> and outcome.> >> >> I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information >> society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and >> power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade >> of representativeness will CS be able for challenging >> effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. >> the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? >> >> The answer is in the question ... >> >> Greetings >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 >> > De : "Mawaki Chango" >> > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >> > >> > >> >> Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that >> like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in >> how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as >> how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That >> is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The >> question is, can we ever come up with basic principles >> that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the >> legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. >> >> >> > >> >> Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. >> >> >> > >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> > >> >> MSm = multistakeholderism >> >> MSr = multistakeholder >> >> >> ================= >> >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> >> Founder and Owner >> >> DIGILEXIS >> >> http://www.digilexis.com >> > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the >> advisability of civil society promoting the “rough >> consensus” model of decision making as differing from >> what I will call “UN consensus”. >> >> “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN >> decision making processes, some related international >> organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus >> model allows any one party to stand against adoption of >> any particular wording, even if the vast majority of >> parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less >> acceptable outcomes. >> >> I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has >> been stifling in many instances and has inhibited >> progress in many areas. >> >> Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For >> instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led >> to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate >> liability and net neutrality being maintained in the >> text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to >> the demands of a small number of government and business >> interests. >> >> In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the >> meeting and the desires of the vast majority of >> participants would have been better reflected with a >> rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN >> style consensus. >> >> However, there is a danger here – minorities are not >> necessarily protected in rough consensus and more >> widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making >> model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. >> However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial >> needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would >> offer significant protection. >> >> So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for >> us to promote here. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Fri May 23 15:26:45 2014 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 12:26:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus LIMITATIONS In-Reply-To: <537E43A8.1070004@communisphere.com> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> <1461d954f98.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <537E43A8.1070004@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <089EC832-402F-4467-AC92-BB25A9D3BBE5@telus.net> But rough consensus is only half the process. The other half is - run the code. To hell with somebody's vision if you can continuously revise consensus through practice. GG On 2014-05-22, at 11:36 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > An article in today's New York Times reviewing a book by former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is headlined "Geithner Depicts Consensus in Crisis, Not Vision." Focusing on consensus one paragraph states a key failure of the Obama Administration: > "It’s an elevation of consensus, rather than what’s right, as a mode of governance. And there are moments that call for vision and ambition." > I read the review as saying that consensus, at best, is Milquetoast. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > On 5/21/2014 5:19 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Peut-etre qu'il nous faudra passer par les etats-generaux de la societe civile globale/mondiale sur la gouvernance de l'internet??? >> >> Ian, the thing is I find it hard to reply yes or no to your question. Yes, it may be better at least on some issues for governments to replace what you call "UN consensus" by rough consensus (among themselves) for their decision-making. But how to get to a place where we could apply rough consensus among multiple stakeholders including governments at global level and on "equal footing"? That's the challenge and that will require more work, including maybe some level of constitution (literally and "politically") for a global CS voice in the processes at hand. >> >> Note that the above will require that within global CS itself, all members (whether individuals or entities) are recognized on equal footing. >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> ------- >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> Founder and Owner >> DIGILEXIS >> http://www.digilexis.com >> Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed? >> >> On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> This is correct I think and a strategically important observation. However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it’s stake/overall strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible. >>> >>> >>> For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or from a normative perspective). >>> >>> >>> This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear basis for establishing a normative representivity… >>> >>> >>> It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic framework) is so risky. In the absence of those linkages back from CS either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their own behalf. They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized representations from other “stakeholders” . The inevitable outcome from this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is significantly at risk. >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>> Cc: Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >>> >>> >>> What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do individual CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there solely to demand a stake? To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they serve? >>> >>> >>> The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and others do spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as their own interests. Quite often though not always these interests may be congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a consensus. >>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> Ian Wrote : >>> >>> < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.> >>> >>> >>> I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? >>> >>> >>> The answer is in the question ... >>> >>> >>> Greetings >>> >>> >>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> >>> >>> >>> > Message du 21/05/14 01:59 >>> > De : "Mawaki Chango" >>> > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" >>> > Copie à : >>> > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >>> > >>> > >>> >>> Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> MSm = multistakeholderism >>> >>> MSr = multistakeholder >>> >>> >>> ================= >>> >>> Mawaki Chango, PhD >>> >>> Founder and Owner >>> >>> DIGILEXIS >>> >>> http://www.digilexis.com >>> > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> > >>> >>> I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. >>> >>> “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. >>> >>> I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. >>> >>> Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. >>> >>> In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. >>> >>> However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. >>> >>> So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 17:31:44 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 03:01:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus LIMITATIONS In-Reply-To: <089EC832-402F-4467-AC92-BB25A9D3BBE5@telus.net> References: <1E87F937167D4B1E9B610BB40F7BD6D9@Toshiba> <1845224192.1281.1400650669352.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m15> <045701cf74c0$17afbe10$470f3a30$@gmail.com> <1461d954f98.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <537E43A8.1070004@communisphere.com> <089EC832-402F-4467-AC92-BB25A9D3BBE5@telus.net> Message-ID: <0E668598-C04D-4C43-8F8C-34DAE9850A6F@hserus.net> Not that code is law Lessigism again :). Though yes, any consensus that stays in the form of different people +1ing each other on email or presenting the same sorts of deck at a conference isn't useful unless thoughts and words are translated into actual deeds. --srs (iPad) > On 24-May-2014, at 0:56, Garth Graham wrote: > > But rough consensus is only half the process. The other half is - run the code. To hell with somebody's vision if you can continuously revise consensus through practice. > > GG > > >> On 2014-05-22, at 11:36 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> >> An article in today's New York Times reviewing a book by former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is headlined "Geithner Depicts Consensus in Crisis, Not Vision." Focusing on consensus one paragraph states a key failure of the Obama Administration: >> "It’s an elevation of consensus, rather than what’s right, as a mode of governance. And there are moments that call for vision and ambition." >> I read the review as saying that consensus, at best, is Milquetoast. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> >>> On 5/21/2014 5:19 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> Peut-etre qu'il nous faudra passer par les etats-generaux de la societe civile globale/mondiale sur la gouvernance de l'internet??? >>> >>> Ian, the thing is I find it hard to reply yes or no to your question. Yes, it may be better at least on some issues for governments to replace what you call "UN consensus" by rough consensus (among themselves) for their decision-making. But how to get to a place where we could apply rough consensus among multiple stakeholders including governments at global level and on "equal footing"? That's the challenge and that will require more work, including maybe some level of constitution (literally and "politically") for a global CS voice in the processes at hand. >>> >>> Note that the above will require that within global CS itself, all members (whether individuals or entities) are recognized on equal footing. >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> ------- >>> Mawaki Chango, PhD >>> Founder and Owner >>> DIGILEXIS >>> http://www.digilexis.com >>> Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed? >>> >>>> On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: >>>> >>>> This is correct I think and a strategically important observation. However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it’s stake/overall strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or from a normative perspective). >>>> >>>> >>>> This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear basis for establishing a normative representivity… >>>> >>>> >>>> It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic framework) is so risky. In the absence of those linkages back from CS either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their own behalf. They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized representations from other “stakeholders” . The inevitable outcome from this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is significantly at risk. >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>>> Cc: Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >>>> >>>> >>>> What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do individual CS representatives bring to the table? Are they there solely to demand a stake? To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they serve? >>>> >>>> >>>> The answer will be that it depends. The companies you name and others do spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as their own interests. Quite often though not always these interests may be congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a consensus. >>>> >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Wrote : >>>> >>>> < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ? >>>> >>>> >>>> The answer is in the question ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Greetings >>>> >>>> >>>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Message du 21/05/14 01:59 >>>>> De : "Mawaki Chango" >>>>> A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" >>>>> Copie à : >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus? >>>> >>>> Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome. That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MSm = multistakeholderism >>>> >>>> MSr = multistakeholder >>>> >>>> >>>> ================= >>>> >>>> Mawaki Chango, PhD >>>> >>>> Founder and Owner >>>> >>>> DIGILEXIS >>>> >>>> http://www.digilexis.com >>>>> Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m interested to know people’s thoughts about the advisability of civil society promoting the “rough consensus” model of decision making as differing from what I will call “UN consensus”. >>>> >>>> “UN consensus” is what we see happening in most UN decision making processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes. >>>> >>>> I think it is reasonable to say that “UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas. >>>> >>>> Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands of a small number of government and business interests. >>>> >>>> In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN style consensus. >>>> >>>> However, there is a danger here – minorities are not necessarily protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant protection. >>>> >>>> So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote here. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat May 24 05:58:34 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 11:58:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Istanbul References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, the local Website for Istanbul is not yet available. Did the Turkish friends announce where (in which hotel/conference center)the Meeting will take place in Istanbul? Thanks wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Sat May 24 06:08:01 2014 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 15:08:01 +0500 Subject: [governance] Istanbul In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Same Problem, website is not fully function. only link http://www.goturkey.com/en for hotel book. Thanks, wolf for bring it up. Sincerely ------- *Asif Kabani* Executive Director Fellow, Diplomacy Foundation, Geneva Fellow, United Nations (UN) Office Geneva Next Generation Leader (NGL), Internet Society (ISOC) *Mobile: *+92 305 555 25 77 *Skype: kabaniasif* *Twitter: @kabaniasif* *E: kabani.asif at gmail.com * *To connect @* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] Towards A Sustainable Earth - Print Only When Necessary requirement. ------------------------------ *CONFIDENTIALITY INFORMATION & DISCLAIMER* This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. We shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. 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 24 May 2014 14:58, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi, > > the local Website for Istanbul is not yet available. Did the Turkish > friends announce where (in which hotel/conference center)the Meeting will > take place in Istanbul? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 24 06:17:08 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 19:17:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Istanbul In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Yes they ssid ICEC. Which I believe is Istanbul Convention and Exhibition Centre. www.icec.org best, Izumi 2014/05/24 12:01 Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: > Hi, > > the local Website for Istanbul is not yet available. Did the Turkish > friends announce where (in which hotel/conference center)the Meeting will > take place in Istanbul? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Sat May 24 06:23:54 2014 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:23:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Istanbul In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Prof. Wolfgang and friends, The venue was indeed announced and thorough details were provided last Monday at the IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meeting, which I attended. The venue is ICEC (Istanbul Lotfi Kirdar Convention & Exhibition Center). You can read the transcript containing the host's presentation about the venue here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/may-open-consultations/transcripts/1630-transcript-19-may-2014 Hope to see you there... Sincerely, Walid Al-Saqaf On May 24, 2014 12:02 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi, > > the local Website for Istanbul is not yet available. Did the Turkish > friends announce where (in which hotel/conference center)the Meeting will > take place in Istanbul? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 24 07:50:00 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 13:50:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Istanbul References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Walid AL-SAQAF Gesendet: Sa 24.05.2014 12:23 An: governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Istanbul Hello Prof. Wolfgang and friends, The venue was indeed announced and thorough details were provided last Monday at the IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meeting, which I attended. The venue is ICEC (Istanbul Lotfi Kirdar Convention & Exhibition Center). You can read the transcript containing the host's presentation about the venue here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/may-open-consultations/transcripts/1630-transcript-19-may-2014 Hope to see you there... Sincerely, Walid Al-Saqaf On May 24, 2014 12:02 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi, > > the local Website for Istanbul is not yet available. Did the Turkish > friends announce where (in which hotel/conference center)the Meeting will > take place in Istanbul? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat May 24 09:50:42 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:50:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Istanbul In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4lnn7gYyOKgTFAiK@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 19:17:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Izumi AIZU writes >Istanbul Convention and Exhibition Centre. > >www.icec.org "500 - Internal server error. There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed." -- 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 pouzin at well.com Sat May 24 10:06:02 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 16:06:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? Message-ID: There is a fairy tale whereby the USG doesn't interfere with ICANN's management. But that's for gullible people. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf Sorry. USG über alles. . Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat May 24 10:23:13 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 19:53:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1462e9d24c8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Is that a Godwin I see there? On 24 May 2014 7:37:30 pm "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > There is a fairy tale whereby the USG doesn't interfere with ICANN's > management. But that's for gullible people. > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf > > Sorry. USG über alles. > . > Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 24 10:53:21 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 09:53:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I read that earlier this morning while looking for something else. For all your talk of nation state sovereignty, does not the USA have the right to point out that Geographical Indicators are the purview of intergovernmental bodies and not ICANN? I see no interference here, just a statement of facts. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > There is a fairy tale whereby the USG doesn't interfere with ICANN's > management. But that's for gullible people. > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf > > Sorry. USG über alles. > . > 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 > -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Sat May 24 14:23:20 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 18:23:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First, I have to say I don't know the exact terms of the ongoing negotiations with the European Commission and wine interests, etc. However, while it's true that we've clearly seen other cases of unwarranted USG interference in ICANN's decision-making processes (eg, .xxx), this correspondence doesn't look to me either like one of them. Any government may write to ICANN and express their position on a pending issue, remind the organization that there has not been a consensus within GAC on the said issue (if it's thought that the path being taken by ICANN is predicated on such consensus or can only make sense and be implementable if there were such consensus,) or still call the organization's attention to the fact that the decision they are contemplating may conflict with established and internationally recognized rights, etc. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that ICANN should automatically abide by that opinion or those arguments. If the organization determines that there are solid, internationally defensible legal grounds to go ahead with the decision, they might still do just that (while responding to the said government explaining their grounds) until a legitimate obstacle is met, in accordance to their own rules and procedures which has been sanctioned by the community at one point or the other in the past. Now, I wish this were actually how business is done, and that no one at ICANN ever gets impressed and influenced in their proceedings by the fact that the government voicing opinion or raising the flag (possibly with a statement of facts, as it sees them), so happens to be the very one that has an oversight role over the organization. Hopefully, that uncertainty (again, the trust issue) will go away after Sept. 2015 and proper mechanisms will be in place for ICANN to account effectively for their policy decisions, particularly on such potentially contentious issues. Mawaki ------- Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, McTim wrote: > I read that earlier this morning while looking for something else. > > For all your talk of nation state sovereignty, does not the USA have > the right to point out that Geographical Indicators are the purview of > intergovernmental bodies and not ICANN? > > I see no interference here, just a statement of facts. > > > > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: > > There is a fairy tale whereby the USG doesn't interfere with ICANN's > > management. But that's for gullible people. > > > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf > > > > Sorry. USG über alles. > > . > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Sun May 25 12:37:00 2014 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 21:37:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Istanbul In-Reply-To: <4lnn7gYyOKgTFAiK@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4lnn7gYyOKgTFAiK@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Thanks... ------- *Asif Kabani* Executive Director Fellow, Diplomacy Foundation, Geneva Fellow, United Nations (UN) Office Geneva Next Generation Leader (NGL), Internet Society (ISOC) *Mobile: *+92 305 555 25 77 *Skype: kabaniasif* *Twitter: @kabaniasif* *E: kabani.asif at gmail.com * *To connect @* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] Towards A Sustainable Earth - Print Only When Necessary requirement. ------------------------------ *CONFIDENTIALITY INFORMATION & DISCLAIMER* This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. We shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. 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 24 May 2014 18:50, Roland Perry wrote: > In message gmail.com>, at 19:17:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Izumi AIZU > writes > > Istanbul Convention and Exhibition Centre. >> >> www.icec.org >> > > "500 - Internal server error. > There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be > displayed." > > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 25 22:50:48 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 04:50:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 20:23 24/05/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: >However, while it's true that we've clearly seen other cases of >unwarranted USG interference in ICANN's decision-making processes >(eg, .xxx), this correspondence doesn't look to me either like one of them. Mawaki, As you say everyone can write to ICANN. I do not because they shown it was no worth: they do not care about @large users they have not sworn into their community, and they are not interested in an MS decision process which would include technical users. We, IUsers (and @large), have invested enough in attempting loyally for years and in vain to open an MS dialog with ICANN. So, when the USG writes to ICANN, we know it only means that they want to show how ICANN is important to their constrained *inter-States* MS decision process. I do not know if Russia, India, China, etc, and other States will take it seriously. Not my cup of tea. But through this USG meddling, we can only observe and accept that: 1. the USG demanded MS process does not implies we are on an MS political equal footing with the Edge Business Providers, Naming Industry, Addressing Maharadjahs, IG Punddits, and States . 2. the USG's rationale is not an MS approach that would consider the users interests and/or wishes. What it considers are the"legal instruments" (i.e. Congress law and ICANN contracts). Hence, as a Digital Coalition for a Fail-Safe Plan For our Nets, we can only call for, and work toward, a multitude's VGNSO (Vitrtual Global Network Support Organization) that will, as every other RFC 6852 "Global Community", produce and adopt our own IANA standards and parameters, "regardless of their formal status", in an MS coopetition with the other RFC 6852 "Global Communities" that represents their vision of the WSIS enhanced cooperation. In proceeding that way, we feel we comply with: - the way the USG shows they want us to proceed, - what apparently ICANN expects from us. - the IETF, IAB, ISOC, IEEE, W3C modern paradigm - the way the Internet has been designed to best innovate. - our best common interest. Any one wanting to join or include our MS proceedings is welcome. 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 joly at punkcast.com Mon May 26 02:39:32 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 02:39:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Finnish Internet Forum Message-ID: This is underway. The current panel - "Quo Vadis Internet?' is the only one in English, but it is looking good. I'll pull it as a highlight, for easy review. Note there is a twitterwall, so participants in the venue will see your tweets. joly posted: "Today, Monday 26 May 2014, the 5th Annual Finnish Internet Forum will take place in Helsinki on May 26 2014. Finnish Internet Forum is a national multi-stakeholder process which discusses Internet-related issues. Its organizers hold an annual meeting and " New post on *ISOC-NY NOTICE BOARD* [image: FIF2014]Today, Monday 26 May 2014, the 5th Annual Finnish Internet Forum will take place in Helsinki The Finnish Internet Forum is a national multi-stakeholder process which discusses Internet-related issues. Its organizers hold an annual meeting and some smaller events throughout the year. This year the forum will cover a wide range of topics, such as the internet governance and the multistakeholder model, the Stakeholder Participation in the Preparation Process of the Information Society Code, Cyber Security and Protection of Privacy in the Digital Age. Participation is open to everyone free of charge. There is a twitter wall in the venue. The forum will be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel . *What*: Finnish Internet Forum 2014 *Where*: Helsinki, Finland *When*: Monday 26 May 2014 09:00-16:00 EEST | 06:00-13:00 UTC | 02:00-09:00 EDT *Agenda*: http://bit.ly/fif2014agenda *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/FIF2014 *Twitter*: #fiforum Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6675 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Mon May 26 12:16:58 2014 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 18:16:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Good afternoon: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " … GI related obligations in any international legal instrument … " (c.f. Strickling, para 2) Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations. That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. Regards Christopher Wilkinson. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 26 17:19:58 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 21:19:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Good evening by GMT time: Thank you, Sir, for pointing out the art. 4 of ICANN Bylaws. This is exactly the kind of correspondence I had in mind, and kind of discussion I would rather see take place, when I wrote the following paragraph in my previous post in this thread: Now that doesn't necessarily mean that ICANN should automatically abide by that opinion or those arguments. If the organization determines that there are solid, internationally defensible legal grounds to go ahead with the decision, they might still do just that (while responding to the said government explaining their grounds) until a legitimate obstacle is met, in accordance to their own rules and procedures which has been sanctioned by the community at one point or the other in the past. I missed to mention "local law" but I do remember the language of that article came up a lot in trademark related discussions while we were developing the policy for new gTLDs in 2006 and 2007 (and, I'm sure, beyond.) And I would agree that it is relevant here. So it may well be that USG writes to ICANN to argue a position and still loses the argument in the end (although in this case, it's only a hypothesis at this point and ICANN may face other objections, based on different grounds, which might prove to be even more determinant that the one currently raised by USG.) Regards, Mawaki ================= Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Good afternoon: > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf > > > Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " ... GI > related obligations in any international legal instrument ... " (c.f. > Strickling, para 2) > > Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: > > *4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet > community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with > relevant principles of international law and applicable international > conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent > with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes > that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this > effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant > international organisations.* > > That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the > 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and > the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. > > Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, > for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on > this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. > > Regards > > Christopher Wilkinson. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Tue May 27 03:31:02 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:31:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST: Stockholm Internet Forum #sif14 @fxinternet #netfreedom Message-ID: This has just started. It is promised to be archived on YouTube but I have no information on that at this time. Will follow up. joly posted: "Stockholm Internet Forum 2014 takes place Tuesday May 27 2014 - Wednesday May 28 2014 in Stockholm, Sweden. The Forum, founded in 2012, aims to bring together policymakers, civil society representatives, activists, business representatives and technical c" [image: SIF 14]*Stockholm Internet Forum 2014*takes place *Tuesday May 27 2014 - Wednesday May 28 2014* in Stockholm, Sweden. The Forum, founded in 2012, aims to bring together policymakers, civil society representatives, activists, business representatives and technical community representatives to deepen the discussions on how freedom and openness on the internet can promote economic and social development worldwide. The theme of the 2014 Forum is *“Internet — privacy, transparency, surveillance and control”*. The format is a plenary followed by three breakout sessions. All 3 are being webcast live via Bambuser. Stockholm is UTC+2, thus 6 hours ahead of NYC. *What*: Stockholm Internet Forum 2014 *Where*: Stockholm, Sweden *When*: Tuesday May 27 2014 - Wednesday May 28 2014 *Agenda*: http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/agenda/ *Webcast*: Main: http://bambuser.com/v/4656014 | Rm2: http://bambuser.com/v/3611792 | Rm3: http://bambuser.com/v/3611585 *Twitter*: #sif14 | @fxinternet Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6688 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 28 15:57:20 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 19:57:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let's leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-) ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want 'local' laws to regulate DNS let's eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn't be the internet then, would it?) The EC's idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority. The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:17 PM To: IGC LIST Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? Importance: High Good afternoon: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " ... GI related obligations in any international legal instrument ... " (c.f. Strickling, para 2) Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations. That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. Regards Christopher Wilkinson. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu May 29 11:00:41 2014 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:00:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Dear Milton: Just imagine if your interpretation were to be applied to trademarks in ICANN - ! (To be protected only _within their own territory_ ) Christopher On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let’s leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-) > ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want ‘local’ laws to regulate DNS let’s eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn’t be the internet then, would it?) > > The EC’s idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority. > > The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community. > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:17 PM > To: IGC LIST > Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade > Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? > Importance: High > > Good afternoon: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf > > Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " … GI related obligations in any international legal instrument … " (c.f. Strickling, para 2) > > Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: > > 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations. > > That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. > > Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. > > Regards > > Christopher Wilkinson. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Thu May 29 11:20:47 2014 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 10:20:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Dear Milton Do you know the: Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin http://www.wipo.int/lisbon/es/ And in effect US is not part of this Treaty, but the other countries yes. In several free trade agreements from US with other countries, they included geographical and for example Peru-USA FTA - 16.2.2. http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/images/stories/eeuu/ingles/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf "Geographical indications means indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a Party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Any sign or combination of signs, in any form whatsoever, shall be eligible to be a geographical indication" I suppose included too in TPPA and TAFTA So… you are wrong and Christopher is right :) Erick El 29/05/2014, a las 10:00, CW Mail escribió: > Dear Milton: > > Just imagine if your interpretation were to be applied to trademarks in ICANN - ! > (To be protected only _within their own territory_ ) > > Christopher > > > On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let’s leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-) >> ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want ‘local’ laws to regulate DNS let’s eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn’t be the internet then, would it?) >> >> The EC’s idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority. >> >> The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community. >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail >> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:17 PM >> To: IGC LIST >> Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade >> Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? >> Importance: High >> >> Good afternoon: >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf >> >> Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " … GI related obligations in any international legal instrument … " (c.f. Strickling, para 2) >> >> Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: >> >> 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations. >> >> That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. >> >> Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. >> >> Regards >> >> Christopher Wilkinson. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 29 11:26:13 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:26:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: At 21:57 28/05/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote: >The EC's idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a >global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert >extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ >rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD >registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from >doing that, they already have that authority. Milton, I feel that the time is now over for such debates about EC, or anyone else, copying the US in wanting to impose local global regulations. The US executive has removed itself from the loop and left the Internet to its reality of an aggregation of national, sales, regional, trade, local, private VGNs under the legal jurisdiction of the contracting parties, stakehodlers and users. The business, legal, structural, technical, etc. hysteresis is going to slowly fade away, most probably with some picks of resurgence: RFC 6852 has definitly acknowledged the nature of the modern Internet and paradigm: "We embrace a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of global markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards regardless of their formal status". These standards without formal status (i.e. by local legal practices) "contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity". Prior to being politcal, or architectural, the fragmentation of the internet comes by its architectural use influenced by local laws and practices. Because internauts do not necessarily identify themselves as WASPs. You and I share the same catenet, use the same internet, but do not intersect much our "loglo.nets" (local virtual global networks). jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu May 29 12:09:26 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 18:09:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Napa and Sonoma US wine producers are worried about carpetbaggers (.vin and .wine applicants). So are non US wine producers. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/thompson-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf Let's see whether the ICANN law is more relevant than a member of the US Congress well connected with major law committees. . À vôtre santé. Louis. - - - On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Erick Iriarte wrote: > Dear Milton > > Do you know the: Lisbon - The International System of Appellations > of Origin > http://www.wipo.int/lisbon/es/ > > And in effect US is not part of this Treaty, but the other countries yes. > > In several free trade agreements from US with other countries, they > included geographical and > > for example > Peru-USA FTA - 16.2.2. > http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/images/stories/eeuu/ingles/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf > "Geographical indications means indications that identify a good as > originating in the territory of a Party, or a region or locality in that > territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of > the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Any sign > or combination of signs, in any form whatsoever, shall be eligible to be a > geographical indication" > > I suppose included too in TPPA and TAFTA > > So... you are wrong and Christopher is right :) > > Erick > > > > On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let's leave > Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-) > ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the > DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want > 'local' laws to regulate DNS let's eliminate a global root altogether and > turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn't > be the internet then, would it?) > > The EC's idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global > resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial > jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _*local*_ rules, let them > regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _*within their own > territory*_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that > authority. > > The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, > and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist > negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support > of the GAC, much less the rest of the community. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 13:00:06 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:00:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Thanks Erick, Beside and beyond the protection related to its wrong 'geographic views', Milton's assertion contains two interesting ideas to debate. 1/ In short, if I may, Milton suggests: "Should we hesitate between a 'Global DNS coordinator and 192 local DNS regulators', then let's eliminate a global root all together." Though a bit provocative and amusing, I reminds me a bit of the usual argument over the un-fragmented vs balkanized Internet. If we think of the true global root-zone it goes beyond what ICANN considers the global root zone (and the file it maintains and update through the IANA function - not a big file indeed). The ICANN understanding of a global root zone is misguiding, as it does not represent the overall root zone, but just the global root zone under direct US oversight and under scrutiny of its many algos whether the civil or military algorithms, or civil algorithms used by security and defense authorities (NSA, DoD...) . In that sense, ICANN is pretty close to a PTT kind of thing, or more to the point, to a former monopole such as 'Les Pages blanches' and 'Les pages Jaunes', directories until liberalization put them out of domination. With over half a billion in revenues per year, ICANN is a PTT, as it only provides 'phone numbers' within its oversight. When many other 'phone numbers' exist (in this context, we call them IP). So, indeed EC could and should allow other providers of root-zoning. It is already the case with the OPEN ROOT revolution. It brings a lot of good news: it is not local at all but plain global, much more secured than what the ICANN root zoning does, free of data and meta-data monetization, free of the NSA surveillance. So there are indeed some interesting alternatives to the view of a single 'ICANN/global' root zone, when the one offered by ICANN is very limitative, expensive to all and lucrative to a few. And again, it is friendly to domination and abuse. So there is no point to argue on a 192 local root zone providers/regulators. But indeed there is an urgent need for competition and choice of ruling/rules and of global root zoning. And as we will do so, we will gain room to take care of other issues such as what jfc's issue is in regard to the Internet architecture 'hole' or with the RFC 6852. Once we will have more than one root zoning provider, these discussions will be greatly facilitated. (PS: "root zoning" is a neologism to express the idea of handling and directing requests at the first level (.xxx.) i.e. managing Domain Name request at the first level. To be clear, I am part of the people who are now using a different file (root-zone file) to find everything that can be found on the InterNet or should I call it MultiNet. So the ultimate question is: when do we acknowledge the end of the MONONET by ICANN and give to all Internet users the ability to have a choice, a cheaper one, a larger one, an honest one root-zoning provider. The root-zone provider (handling all .xxx) that I am working with, is not the usual US alternative 8.8.8.8 i.e. Google, as an adjunct to ICANN). My root-zoning provider allows me to go everywhere I want, and is even able to link me to several IP having the same TLD but different sectors/topics of interests. That means that the .WINE extension can have different users/holders/guardians - one issue is solved here! This is done in the same way that I have to explain to my young son that they are 2 lines of buses in Geneva with the same number that are ultimately going to three different final locations. 2/ Milton has another hint: "If they (the EU) want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own country. nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority." Again, Milton suggest that the Europeans are interested by building new Berlin Walls around, or even worse some 'Ligne Maginot'. I do not see anything like this is the European expectations. But again, we are only confronting the idea of having several 'Global Root Zone Providers'. This is doable. And this is not a technical issue. What is a technical issue goes to algorithm as those are not ready to be used outside the ICANN so called 'global root zone'. So we should really consider what the OPEN ROOT is offering to us as a remedy to technical and political issues, related to IG. Until we accept to think out of the ICANN root zoning, much of the current IG debate will go no further than where the US government and Congress want us to go. Being a libertarian does not equate rejecting at all costs governments (at least I would defend the democratic ones) and try to feature an Internet Governance that can be run by a few autocrats having found themselves as the legitimate holders of the humanity bien-être. JC By the way if you replace 'EC' by 'US' in Milton email you have got an interesting perspective of the present state of IG. Le 29 mai 2014 à 17:20, Erick Iriarte a écrit : > Dear Milton > > Do you know the: Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin > http://www.wipo.int/lisbon/es/ > > And in effect US is not part of this Treaty, but the other countries yes. > > In several free trade agreements from US with other countries, they included geographical and > > for example > Peru-USA FTA - 16.2.2. http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/images/stories/eeuu/ingles/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf > "Geographical indications means indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a Party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Any sign or combination of signs, in any form whatsoever, shall be eligible to be a geographical indication" > > I suppose included too in TPPA and TAFTA > > So… you are wrong and Christopher is right :) > > Erick > > > > El 29/05/2014, a las 10:00, CW Mail escribió: > >> Dear Milton: >> >> Just imagine if your interpretation were to be applied to trademarks in ICANN - ! >> (To be protected only _within their own territory_ ) >> >> Christopher >> >> >> On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let’s leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-) >>> ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want ‘local’ laws to regulate DNS let’s eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn’t be the internet then, would it?) >>> >>> The EC’s idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority. >>> >>> The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail >>> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:17 PM >>> To: IGC LIST >>> Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade >>> Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Good afternoon: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf >>> >>> Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " … GI related obligations in any international legal instrument … " (c.f. Strickling, para 2) >>> >>> Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: >>> >>> 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations. >>> >>> That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. >>> >>> Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Christopher Wilkinson. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sat May 24 17:29:24 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 23:29:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Public Access: Supporting Digital Inclusion for All In-Reply-To: <0BAFCA17-FD67-422A-87B1-D9EB35AD58C0@stockholm.se> References: <0BAFCA17-FD67-422A-87B1-D9EB35AD58C0@stockholm.se> Message-ID: <53810F34.8030003@apc.org> Dear all Apologies if this has been posted already. Anriette Dear all, IFLA, along with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the Technology and Social Change Group (TASCHA) at the University of Washington have prepared a briefing paper “Public access: Supporting digital inclusion for all – Maximising the impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for inclusive social and economic development”. The paper was produced for the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), Seventeenth Session which IFLA attended between 2-16 May 2014 in Geneva. ​ The briefing paper draws UN Member States' attention to the importance of access to ICTs as a key issue in development and to the ongoing digital divide. It includes a checklist of action points for policymakers that highlights an ecosystem approach to ensure better public access. The most important initiatives that need to be considered are: · Build awareness and information sharing. There is generally a shortage of knowledge of the importance of public access, and on how to implement and sustain public access facilities, especially in developing countries. Knowledge of best practices and sustainable solutions using the latest technologies needs to be assembled and circulated, in print, in online fora and in training workshops. · Improve the enabling environment – a basic requirement for public access facilities is low-cost high-speed connectivity. This requires a conducive policy and regulatory environment which ensures competitive, pervasive and reliable provision of internet services. · Implement use of universal access funds and other public policy instruments to support public access, not only at the national level but also through provincial or local municipal authorities. · Address human resource deficiencies. Policies need to be aimed at ensuring a sufficient number of appropriately trained people at a technical level to support public access facilities, for their staff to help in the provision of ICT services to the public, and for the public in how to make the most effective use of them, especially by women and other disenfranchised groups. · Invest in locally relevant applications and service development, particularly e-government services. This will help fuel the demand for access and make public access facilities more sustainable. Libraries in particular can be an effective vehicle for supporting the implementation of e-government strategies at the local level. · Set targets and monitor progress. Targets and indicators need to be adopted to enable measurement of progress in providing public access, and in assessing impact. This should be based on an objective methodology for evaluating the quality of access available to the general public. Read the full briefing in English, Español and français. IFLA encourages members to use the briefing paper in their communications with policymakers about public access to ICTs. Please also see the webversion. Julia Brungs Policy and Projects Officer International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands Phone: 0031703140884 Email: Julia.brungs at ifla.org _______________________________________________ pal-dc mailing list Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc To unsubscribe, email pal-dc-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org _______________________________________________ pal-dc mailing list Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc To unsubscribe, email pal-dc-unsubscribe at lists.apc.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 anriette at apc.org Mon May 26 07:11:15 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:11:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] South Africa R2K STATEMENT: New Cabinet is a blow to the right to communicate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53832153.8030607@apc.org> Dear all This is a huge blow for us in South Africa. We have had a good minister of communications for a while, Yunus Carrim. He made a very positive difference in his short tenure, ensuring that we have a functioning broadband policy and beginning to tackle issues such as digital migration. He had a very strong public interest commitment. Sadly our new cabinet has just been announced and he has been completely sidelined. We have 2 ministries where we had one. Posts and Telecoms lead by the former security establishment leader who lead the infamous south african 'secrecy bill' and Communications which combines broad communications with government propaganda This is very depressing for us. See the statement below from South Africa's right to information civil society coalition. Anriette Please circulate widely... R2K STATEMENT: New Cabinet is a blow to the right to communicate */Issued by the Right2Know Campaign, 26 May 2014./* Yesterday President Zuma announced his new Cabinet including a new Ministry of Telecommunications and Postal Services and a reconceptualised Ministry of Communications. *_Ministry of Communications: Ensuring the ‘Good Story’ get’s told._* The new-look Ministry of Communications, led by Faith Muthambi, will be responsible for both overarching communication policy and spreading government information, publicity and branding of the country abroad. By conflating communication policy and government propaganda the President is signaling an intention to ensure various institutions will be used to amplify government propaganda rather then to create a democratic communication system for all South Africans. Of particular concern is Zuma’s announcement that the new Communications Ministry will be "formed out of" the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), the SA Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA). These are all bodies which have degrees of statuary independence from the Executive. They all have critical mandates to defend and advance our constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. We must now face the risk that the Ministry of Communications will be used to further weaken the regulatory capacity of Icasa and further undermine the already questionable independence of the SABC, all in service of creating a communication environment compliant to the needs of government messaging, rather than one which best serves the information needs of the people. The Ministry will also be responsible for drafting government policies on broadcasting and the transformation of the print media. These are both long overdue interventions that should be aimed at diversifying the media landscape and ensuring the sustainability of public and community media. These sensitive regulatory processes must be undertaken to advance freedom of expression and press freedom in particular. They are now in the hands of a Minister with a mandate to ensure that government’s ‘good story’ gets told. *_Ministry of Telecommunications and Postal Services: Profit before People and Privacy._* The new Ministry of Telecommunications and Postal Services is led by former spy boss Siyabonga Cwele. The Right2Know Campaign has concerns about both the rationale for a new Ministry as well as the appropriateness of Siyabonga Cwele’s appointment. The increasing convergence of broadcasting and information communications telecommunications technologies (ICTs) has led to a global trend of convergence where broadcasting and telecommunications are increasingly integrated. President Zuma’s three previous Ministers responsible for broadcasting and ICTs have all driven an integrated approach that has led to the ICT Green Paper currently in discussion. The new Ministry appears to be a set back that will undermine the ability of South Africa to harness the democratizing and developmental potentials of communication technologies. Further, the President’s stated intentions for the new Ministry places economic growth ahead of the ICT needs of our democracy and our people. Information must flow across society and form the basis of a social dialogue that deepens our democracy and advances social, economic, and environmental justice. Instead the President has emphasized the economic value of an industry already defined by excessive monopolization, profiteering and the failure to provide affordable access to the majority of South Africans. Globally, the revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have shown why state surveillance and the right to privacy need to be at the centre of any government communications policy. In South Africa there is urgent need for both government and the private telecommunications sector to scrap policies and practices that allow ordinary South Africans’ communications to be intercepted and their privacy to be violated. Under Dr Cwele’s stewardship of the Ministry of State Security, there have been growing concerns about the use and misuse of interception of communications. (Between 2008 and 2011 – the most recent statistics available through Parliament – there was a 170% increase in interception through the RICA system[1] .) As former Minister of State Security, Dr Cwele refused to engage publically with the findings of the 2008 report of the Matthews Commission into abuses of power and privacy in state-security structures, helping to bury the report on a technicality and allowing government officials and Parliamentarians to refuse to even acknowledge the report’s findings. Both Ministries poses a potential threat to the Right2Know’s Vula ‘ma Connexion (open the connections) campaign for safe, quality and affordable access to communications. We call on both the Ministers to commit to upholding and advancing our right to communicate– to receive and impart information and opinions – that is central to our right to know. We are committed to engaging constantly with both Ministries to ensure that the Right2Know’s /Preconditions for a Democratic Communication System/[2] //are delivered in their term in office/. /We will intensify our campaign for a democratic communication system that is able to: •Secure community ownership of networks •Provide universal service and democratic use •Protect digital rights of privacy and freedom of expression •Utilize convergence for efficient digital delivery •Enshrine the practice of net neutrality •Acquire capital for network growth and economic sufficiency •Maintain a vision of forward-thinking technology ### ENDS ### *_For Comment:_* National Spokesperson: Murray Hunter 072 6725468 Media Freedom/Diversity Spokesperson: Julie Reid: 082 885 8969 Telecommunications Spokesperson: John Haffner 0603665880 Gauteng Spokesperson: Dale McKinley 072 429 4086
 KZN Spokesperson: Nomvula Sikakane: 073 4882374 Statement online: http://www.r2k.org.za/2014/05/26/new-zuma-cabinet/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] See R2K’s analysis at http://www.r2k.org.za/2014/03/16/r2k-analysis-signs-of-a-deep-rot-in-state-security-structures/ [2] See R2K preconditions for a democratic communications system here: http://www.r2k.org.za/2014/03/28/right2know-releases-preconditions-for-a-democratic-broadcasting-telecommunications-system/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R2K_working_groups" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to r2k_working_groups+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: R2K_STATEMENT_-_new_minsters blow to right2communicate .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 165957 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu May 29 18:26:55 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:26:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Another remark about that quote from MM is that I'm afraid things are more complicated than the simplistic divide it seems to suggest between the DNS as global resource and local rules. The trouble is, and perhaps has always been, that names are not numbers. But first, there is something called global trade, of which USG is a world champion -- and understandably so. Thanks to global trade, many products such as wines are not just local consumption goods. Many such goods are demanded around the world, based on their reputation and some other factors. So this is not just a matter of local rules. Saying that does not mean I'm advocating for sweeping rules universally protecting one country's or one company's trademarks as global fortresses. There are still other rules to be considered, among possible others, off-line rules or principles of trademark law, etc. A wine that is produced in Western Cape which is globally exported with a well established reputation in connection with its geographical provenance is not only subject to Western Cape or South African rules. As a matter of fact, there are many local fine liquors that do not make it to the export list due to a whole stack of international rules and requirements to be met for them to be exported. So those that make it to the export list are subject to rules beyond local ones. Secondly, as I was saying, names are not numbers. Once we're talking about names, we're sooner or later confronted with things/ strings of characters which (literally) mean a lot to some people, not just as local folklore but also as a global asset. In a sense, at some point TLDs become something of a content. I know we often say ICANN shouldn't be regulating content, but the fact is that because they are names, TLDs may more often than not carry with them the same kind of challenges that relate to contents. Furthermore, once you're talking about names, then you might quickly be talking about identities (as far as human beings are concerned) and the boundaries of those identities may possibly not coincide with local or national boundaries. As long as there is no .WINE or .VIN, etc. TLD, people may register whatever they want which is available at second level of the DNS (gTLDs and ccTLDs) and countries may content themselves with regulating domain name sale/registration within their borders. Once your considering authorizing those TLDs, then you're clearly inviting the wine industry (in this example), especially those that export their products _globally_ to seek ways in which nobody else is going to usurp, say, their wine brands, their identities within the wine industry, which happen to be attached to geographical indications, under the _global_ resource and medium that would be the .WINE TLD. Would anyone seriously expect otherwise? (And let me quickly add that, as I see it, only within the boundaries of such TLD or any TLD that unambiguously refers to their industry, they may have claims to GIs that define their brand or identity in that industry.) As I said, I'm not a trademark militant, not even an advocate, to be clear. And I don't think a TLD designating an industry has to be ran necessarily by an entity whose business is in that industry. But industry players are entitled to ask that ground rules be established under that specific industry TLD, which do not mess up with their globally relevant business or products. In conclusion, names are not numbers. Internet is not for machines but for us the people who attach meaning to signs and names. Names (such as in the DNS) may equate to content, based on what they mean to people and they may encapsulate whole identities. So rules that are going to be made by ICANN about those names (including using them as a TLD, to begin with) are sometimes going to be as challenging as regulating contents, whether we like it or not. Some of these identities may have, even in the geo-physical space, a global scope or at least a scope larger than the local and national scope, in large part thanks to global trade. Therefore, it's clear that issues and questions will arise which, to be resolved, will need other rules or agreements beyond national jurisdiction rules. To my understanding, negotiating some of these new arrangements for the space that the .WINE TLD would open up is what the European Commission is engaged in with ICANN (based on what I have read here.) Mawaki On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jefsey wrote: > At 21:57 28/05/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The EC's idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global > resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial > jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _*local*_ rules, let them > regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _*within their own > territory*_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that > authority. > > > Milton, > > I feel that the time is now over for such debates about EC, or anyone > else, copying the US in wanting to impose local global regulations. The US > executive has removed itself from the loop and left the Internet to its > reality of an aggregation of national, sales, regional, trade, local, > private VGNs under the legal jurisdiction of the contracting parties, > stakehodlers and users. > > The business, legal, structural, technical, etc. hysteresis is going to > slowly fade away, most probably with some picks of resurgence: RFC 6852 has > definitly acknowledged the nature of the modern Internet and paradigm: "We > embrace a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of global > markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of > standards regardless of their formal status". These standards without > formal status (i.e. by local legal practices) "contribute to the creation > of global communities, benefiting humanity". Prior to being politcal, or > architectural, the fragmentation of the internet comes by its architectural > use influenced by local laws and practices. Because internauts do not > necessarily identify themselves as WASPs. > > You and I share the same catenet, use the same internet, but do not > intersect much our "loglo.nets" (local virtual global networks). > > jfc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ehchun at gmail.com Fri May 30 00:42:58 2014 From: ehchun at gmail.com (Chun Eung Hwi) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 05:42:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] SOS! Message-ID: Sorry for the inconveniences, I am in Limassol,Cyprus. I am here for a week and I just misplaced my bag containing all my vital items, phone and money at the Bus station. I need a little help from you. Thanks -- --------------------- Chun Eung Hwi ehchun at gmail.com pcs (+82) 10-3076-2259 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ehchun at gmail.com Fri May 30 01:37:47 2014 From: ehchun at gmail.com (Chun Eung Hwi) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:37:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] SOS! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please ignore the following message! It's not sent by me. Maybe, it seems to be compromised and exploited by some bad guy! I am sorry for this problem. 2014-05-30 13:42 GMT+09:00, Chun Eung Hwi : > Sorry for the inconveniences, I am in Limassol,Cyprus. I am here for a > week and I just misplaced my bag containing all my vital items, phone > and money at the Bus station. I need a little help from you. > > Thanks > -- > --------------------- > Chun Eung Hwi > > ehchun at gmail.com > pcs (+82) 10-3076-2259 > > -- --------------------- Chun Eung Hwi ehchun at gmail.com pcs (+82) 10-3076-2259 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 30 07:42:20 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:42:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] South Africa R2K STATEMENT: New Cabinet is a blow to the right to communicate In-Reply-To: <53832153.8030607@apc.org> References: <53832153.8030607@apc.org> Message-ID: Many thanks Anriette for sharing this very important case. In my view it is Not a local issue of South Africa, but rather quite global, if not universal challenge we all face with. Has there been any mention of "Multistakeholder" for your national process of ICT governance or policy formulation? We need local MSH process at work, to advance global CS involvement in MSH governance implementation. Izumi 2014年5月26日月曜日、Anriette Esterhuysenさんは書きました: > Dear all > > This is a huge blow for us in South Africa. We have had a good minister of > communications for a while, Yunus Carrim. He made a very positive > difference in his short tenure, ensuring that we have a functioning > broadband policy and beginning to tackle issues such as digital migration. > He had a very strong public interest commitment. > > Sadly our new cabinet has just been announced and he has been completely > sidelined. We have 2 ministries where we had one. Posts and Telecoms lead > by the former security establishment leader who lead the infamous south > african 'secrecy bill' and Communications which combines broad > communications with government propaganda > > This is very depressing for us. > > See the statement below from South Africa's right to information civil > society coalition. > > Anriette > > > > Please circulate widely... > > R2K STATEMENT: New Cabinet is a blow to the right to communicate > > > > *Issued by the Right2Know Campaign, 26 May 2014.* > > > > > > Yesterday President Zuma announced his new Cabinet including a new > Ministry of Telecommunications and Postal Services and a reconceptualised > Ministry of Communications. > > > > > > *Ministry of Communications: Ensuring the ‘Good Story’ get’s told.* > > > > The new-look Ministry of Communications, led by Faith Muthambi, will be > responsible for both overarching communication policy and spreading > government information, publicity and branding of the country abroad. > > > > By conflating communication policy and government propaganda the President > is signaling an intention to ensure various institutions will be used to > amplify government propaganda rather then to create a democratic > communication system for all South Africans. > > > > Of particular concern is Zuma’s announcement that the new Communications > Ministry will be "formed out of" the Independent Communications Authority > of South Africa (Icasa), the SA Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the > Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA). These are all bodies which > have degrees of statuary independence from the Executive. They all have > critical mandates to defend and advance our constitutional rights to > freedom of expression and access to information. > > > > We must now face the risk that the Ministry of Communications will be used > to further weaken the regulatory capacity of Icasa and further undermine > the already questionable independence of the SABC, all in service of > creating a communication environment compliant to the needs of government > messaging, rather than one which best serves the information needs of the > people. > > > > The Ministry will also be responsible for drafting government policies on > broadcasting and the transformation of the print media. These are both long > overdue interventions that should be aimed at diversifying the media > landscape and ensuring the sustainability of public and community media. > These sensitive regulatory processes must be undertaken to advance freedom > of expression and press freedom in particular. They are now in the hands of > a Minister with a mandate to ensure that government’s ‘good story’ gets > told. > > > > > > *Ministry of Telecommunications and Postal Services: Profit before People > and Privacy.* > > > > The new Ministry of Telecommunications and Postal Services is led by > former spy boss Siyabonga Cwele. The Right2Know Campaign has concerns > about both the rationale for a new Ministry as well as the appropriateness > of Siyabonga Cwele’s appointment. > > > > The increasing convergence of broadcasting and information communications > telecommunications technologies (ICTs) has led to a global trend of > convergence where broadcasting and telecommunications are increasingly > integrated. President Zuma’s three previous Ministers responsible for > broadcasting and ICTs have all driven an integrated approach that has led > to the ICT Green Paper currently in discussion. The new Ministry appears > to be a set back that will undermine the ability of South Africa to harness > the democratizing and developmental potentials of communication > technologies. > > > > Further, the President’s stated intentions for the new Ministry places > economic growth ahead of the ICT needs of our democracy and our people. > > > > Information must flow across society and form the basis of a social > dialogue that deepens our democracy and advances social, economic, and > environmental justice. Instead the President has emphasized the economic > value of an industry already defined by excessive monopolization, > profiteering and the failure to provide affordable access to the majority > of South Africans. > > > > Globally, the revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have shown > why state surveillance and the right to privacy need to be at the centre of > any government communications policy. In South Africa there is urgent need > for both government and the private telecommunications sector to scrap > policies and practices that allow ordinary South Africans’ communications > to be intercepted and their privacy to be violated. > > > > Under Dr Cwele’s stewardship of the Ministry of State Security, there have > been growing concerns about the use and misuse of interception of > communications. (Between 2008 and 2011 – the most recent statistics > available through Parliament – there was a 170% increase in interception > through the RICA system[1] > .) > As former Minister of State Security, Dr Cwele refused to engage publically > with the findings of the 2008 report of the Matthews Commission into abuses > of power and privacy in state-security structures, helping to bury the > report on a technicality and allowing government officials and > Parliamentarians to refuse to even acknowledge the report’s findings. > > > > Both Ministries poses a potential threat to the Right2Know’s Vula ‘ma > Connexion (open the connections) campaign for safe, quality and affordable > access to communications. > > > > We call on both the Ministers to commit to upholding and advancing our > right to communicate– to receive and impart information and opinions – > that is central to our right to know. > > > > We are committed to engaging constantly with both Ministries to ensure > that the Right2Know’s *Preconditions for a Democratic Communication > System*[2] > are > delivered in their term in office*. *We will intensify our campaign for a > democratic communication system that is able to: > > > > • Secure community ownership of networks > > • Provide universal service and democratic use > > • Protect digital rights of privacy and freedom of expression > > • Utilize convergence for efficient digital delivery > > • Enshrine the practice of net neutrality > > • Acquire capital for network growth and economic sufficiency > > • Maintain a vision of forward-thinking technology > > > > > > ### ENDS ### > > > > *For Comment:* > > > > National Spokesperson: Murray Hunter 072 6725468 > > Media Freedom/Diversity Spokesperson: Julie Reid: 082 885 8969 > > Telecommunications Spokesperson: John Haffner 0603665880 > > Gauteng Spokesperson: Dale McKinley 072 429 4086 > > KZN Spokesperson: Nomvula Sikakane: 073 4882374 > > > > Statement on > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "R2K_working_groups" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to r2k_working_groups+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 30 09:45:38 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:45:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> <85948796-9A8E-4271-A541-E22A75418D2E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <57a13c646e6846389cce449bc8093646@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Chris, Your ability to not understand basic aspects of Internet governance always amazes me. So my interpretation was and always has been applied to trademarks in ICANN. Domain names are not trademarks, they are character strings that act as globally unique identifiers for a host on the internet. Whether or not domain names clash with trademarks - or geographical indicators - depends on how they are used, NOT on a mechanical string match. Therefore we should have a global, and relatively simple and laissez-faire system of assigning domain names. If there are clashes with TMs, or with GIs, we have the UDRP as a first cut to protect rights, ex post, and if that isn't enough we have national laws that can be applied based on their jurisdiction. In other words, if someone uses a .WINE domain in a way that clashes with established law in any country that has these protectionist laws, action can be taken. You do not need to do it by imposing ex ante restrictions on how a top level domain can be used or to whom it is allocated. From: CW Mail [mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? Dear Milton: Just imagine if your interpretation were to be applied to trademarks in ICANN - ! (To be protected only _within their own territory_ ) Christopher On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let's leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-) ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want 'local' laws to regulate DNS let's eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn't be the internet then, would it?) The EC's idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority. The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:17 PM To: IGC LIST Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? Importance: High Good afternoon: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " ... GI related obligations in any international legal instrument ... " (c.f. Strickling, para 2) Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4: 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations. That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation. Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong. Regards Christopher Wilkinson. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 30 09:46:34 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:46:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: <201405291526.s4TFQGbw009307@mx1.syr.edu> References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> <201405291526.s4TFQGbw009307@mx1.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3e05fca2a71b45489c1309e9ca6dd239@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Yeah. I was about to say that. ;-) You and I share the same catenet, use the same internet, but do not intersect much our "loglo.nets" (local virtual global networks). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 30 10:01:35 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:01:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ? In-Reply-To: References: <6192537A-99D9-4BDA-970D-3717905C511E@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: The simplistic interpretation is yours, not mine, Mawaki. It's funny, when you say this: >Once your considering authorizing those TLDs, then you're clearly >inviting the wine industry (in this example), especially those that >export their products _globally_ to seek ways in which nobody else is > going to usurp, say, their wine brands, their identities within the wine >industry, which happen to be attached to geographical indications, >under the _global_ resource and medium that would be the .WINE TLD. ...you are stuck in the same mentality as the trademark maximalists of 1998. You think that domain names ARE the same thing as TMs/GIs and that ICANN should be a global TM/GI regulator. You do not understand the distinction between allocating unique identifiers with a technical function and ex post regulation of problems pertaining to their semantics. The distinction is clear and it's taken noncommercial interests more than a decade, and tons of political blood, sweat and tears, to establish that distinction, which is important both for free trade and for freedom of expression. You are on the wrong side. Its depressing to see this important debate clouded by silly regional and personal animosities. Louis Louzin hates ICANN and the US but doesn't seem to understand that nothing makes ICANN more important, more powerful and more unaccountable than giving it the power to impose ex ante regulations on the use of names simply because someone _might_ misuse one. I'd suggest that anyone with sympathy for the GI case review the literature on intermediary liability and regulation through intermediaries and ask yourself why all the civil liberties and rights groups are strongly opposed to that approach. You might also review the chapter on "rights to names" in Ruling the Root, the same issues are all clearly laid out there, it's I find it amusing that the reborn "progressive" Louis Pouzin, interested in JustNet and the little guy, lets his hatred for the US and ICANN make him side with protectionist economist interests simply because they are European. Let's grow up, folks. It's also amusing to see Erick admit that the treaty he wants globally enforced hasn't been signed by the world's largest economy. And Erick is a lawyer. Apparently forgot some basic things about jurisdiction and sovereignty. Perhaps some review of law books is required there, too. From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com] Another remark about that quote from MM is that I'm afraid things are more complicated than the simplistic divide it seems to suggest between the DNS as global resource and local rules. The trouble is, and perhaps has always been, that names are not numbers. But first, there is something called global trade, of which USG is a world champion -- and understandably so. Thanks to global trade, many products such as wines are not just local consumption goods. Many such goods are demanded around the world, based on their reputation and some other factors. So this is not just a matter of local rules. Saying that does not mean I'm advocating for sweeping rules universally protecting one country's or one company's trademarks as global fortresses. There are still other rules to be considered, among possible others, off-line rules or principles of trademark law, etc. A wine that is produced in Western Cape which is globally exported with a well established reputation in connection with its geographical provenance is not only subject to Western Cape or South African rules. As a matter of fact, there are many local fine liquors that do not make it to the export list due to a whole stack of international rules and requirements to be met for them to be exported. So those that make it to the export list are subject to rules beyond local ones. Secondly, as I was saying, names are not numbers. Once we're talking about names, we're sooner or later confronted with things/ strings of characters which (literally) mean a lot to some people, not just as local folklore but also as a global asset. In a sense, at some point TLDs become something of a content. I know we often say ICANN shouldn't be regulating content, but the fact is that because they are names, TLDs may more often than not carry with them the same kind of challenges that relate to contents. Furthermore, once you're talking about names, then you might quickly be talking about identities (as far as human beings are concerned) and the boundaries of those identities may possibly not coincide with local or national boundaries. As long as there is no .WINE or .VIN, etc. TLD, people may register whatever they want which is available at second level of the DNS (gTLDs and ccTLDs) and countries may content themselves with regulating domain name sale/registration within their borders. Once your considering authorizing those TLDs, then you're clearly inviting the wine industry (in this example), especially those that export their products _globally_ to seek ways in which nobody else is going to usurp, say, their wine brands, their identities within the wine industry, which happen to be attached to geographical indications, under the _global_ resource and medium that would be the .WINE TLD. Would anyone seriously expect otherwise? (And let me quickly add that, as I see it, only within the boundaries of such TLD or any TLD that unambiguously refers to their industry, they may have claims to GIs that define their brand or identity in that industry.) As I said, I'm not a trademark militant, not even an advocate, to be clear. And I don't think a TLD designating an industry has to be ran necessarily by an entity whose business is in that industry. But industry players are entitled to ask that ground rules be established under that specific industry TLD, which do not mess up with their globally relevant business or products. In conclusion, names are not numbers. Internet is not for machines but for us the people who attach meaning to signs and names. Names (such as in the DNS) may equate to content, based on what they mean to people and they may encapsulate whole identities. So rules that are going to be made by ICANN about those names (including using them as a TLD, to begin with) are sometimes going to be as challenging as regulating contents, whether we like it or not. Some of these identities may have, even in the geo-physical space, a global scope or at least a scope larger than the local and national scope, in large part thanks to global trade. Therefore, it's clear that issues and questions will arise which, to be resolved, will need other rules or agreements beyond national jurisdiction rules. To my understanding, negotiating some of these new arrangements for the space that the .WINE TLD would open up is what the European Commission is engaged in with ICANN (based on what I have read here.) Mawaki On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jefsey > wrote: At 21:57 28/05/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote: The EC's idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority. Milton, I feel that the time is now over for such debates about EC, or anyone else, copying the US in wanting to impose local global regulations. The US executive has removed itself from the loop and left the Internet to its reality of an aggregation of national, sales, regional, trade, local, private VGNs under the legal jurisdiction of the contracting parties, stakehodlers and users. The business, legal, structural, technical, etc. hysteresis is going to slowly fade away, most probably with some picks of resurgence: RFC 6852 has definitly acknowledged the nature of the modern Internet and paradigm: "We embrace a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of global markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards regardless of their formal status". These standards without formal status (i.e. by local legal practices) "contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity". Prior to being politcal, or architectural, the fragmentation of the internet comes by its architectural use influenced by local laws and practices. Because internauts do not necessarily identify themselves as WASPs. You and I share the same catenet, use the same internet, but do not intersect much our "loglo.nets" (local virtual global networks). jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 30 12:19:02 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:19:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI re EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden, below. Coincidentally coming same day as Google acquiescience to EU mandates on privacy right to be forgotten; which Google belatedly admits is trivial for it to implement - makes today a very good day for Internet Rights and Principles. In fact it is up already at: https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch Lest you EU netizens - forget where to look for the form. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber via ip Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 11:05 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden [1] EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden ========================================================================= On June 2 the Electronic Privacy Information Center will celebrate 20 years of privacy advocacy with the 2014 EPIC Champions of Freedom Awards. Established in 1994, EPIC was created to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues. EPIC maintains two of the most popular privacy websites in the world - epic.org and privacy.org - and pursues policy research, litigation, public education, and advocacy. EPIC's Advisory Board includes leading experts in law, technology and public policy. EPIC established the Champion of Freedom Awards to recognize individuals and organizations that safeguard the right to privacy with courage and integrity. Internationally renowned security technologist Bruce Schneier will host the 2014 EPIC celebration. EPIC will honor University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Anita L. Allen for her work as the nation's leading privacy law scholar. A longtime EPIC Advisory Board member, Professor Allen has helped shape the modern understanding of the right to privacy. EPIC will honor Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) for his campaign to defund the NSA's telephone record collection program. EPIC will recognize The Guardian newspaper for publishing documents obtained by Edward Snowden that provided the basis for EPIC's petition to the US Supreme Court to end the bulk collection of Americans' telephone records. Edward Snowden will also receive an award from EPIC for disclosing the secret court that documented the unlawful surveillance of Americans and for transforming the debate about privacy protection. "EPIC is honored to recognize these Champions of Freedom who have worked to safeguard privacy, some at great personal risk," said Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's President and Executive Director. Previous recipients of the Champion of Freedom Award include Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and journalist Martha Mendoza (2013); Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, and journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin (2012); Representatives Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Rush Holt (D-NJ), former Miss USA Susie Castillo, and the Wall Street Journal (2011); Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), former FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, and the Rose Foundation (2010); Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), director D.J. Caruso, philanthropist Addison Fischer, and attorney Paul M. Smith (2009); and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (2004). EPIC has previously presented the Lifetime Achievement award to David Flaherty (2013), Whitfield Diffie (2012), and Willis Ware (2012). ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20140530110529:D2EB9AFA-E80B-11E3-9303-E284848BA502 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 jcurran at istaff.org Fri May 30 12:53:00 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:53:00 -0400 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> On May 30, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI re EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden, below. > > Coincidentally coming same day as Google acquiescience to EU mandates on privacy right to be forgotten; which Google belatedly admits is trivial for it to implement - makes today a very good day for Internet Rights and Principles. In fact it is up already at: https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch Lest you EU netizens - forget where to look for the form. ; ) Presumably, Google will keep an archive of all of the "forgotten" links somewhere, so that they may be promptly reinstated should they suddenly become relevant? e.g. Lee McKnight decides to run for public office; is there a form to ask for reinstatement of the omitted link information, given that it is now relevant? Or somehow allow inclusion in the public results after the indexing of the public information on the next pass? When does the individual lose the right to be forgotten due to presence in public life, how do journalists know the appropriate guidelines and process to be followed in such contexts so that they may fulfill their duties to the public? /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 kboakye at gmail.com Fri May 30 13:26:51 2014 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:26:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google sets up 'right to be forgotten' form after EU ruling Message-ID: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27631001 Google has launched a service to allow Europeans to ask for personal data to be removed from online search results. The move comes after a landmark European Union court ruling earlier this month, which gave people the "right to be forgotten". Links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request, it said. Google said it would assess each request and balance "privacy rights of the individual with the public's right to know and distribute information". "When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there's a public interest in the information," Google says on the form which applicants must fill in . [image: line] Case study - Brad from Derbyshire *"The story was relating to an offence of drinking and driving. A criminal conviction.* *"But has it got any public interest that somebody was convicted of that several years ago? I don't think so."* 'Google should forget me' [image: line] Google said it would look at information about "financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials" while deciding on the request. Earlier this month, the BBC learned that more than half of the requests sent to Google from UK individuals involved convicted criminals. This included a man convicted of possessing child abuse images who had also asked for links to pages about his conviction to be wiped. 'Fraudulent requests' Google said information would start to be removed from mid-June and any results affected by the removal process would be flagged to searchers. Decisions about data removal would be made by people rather than the algorithms that govern almost every other part of Google's search system. Disagreements about whether information should be removed or not will be overseen by national data protection agencies. Europe's data regulators are scheduled to meet on 3-4 June. The "right to forget" will be discussed at that gathering and could result in a statement about how those watchdogs will handle appeals. [image: line] Analysis - Rory Cellan-Jones *"Much of the comment online has been deeply sceptical about the right to be forgotten, particularly in the US where the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech would make this kind of ruling impossible.* *Some have pointed out that information won't be removed from google.com , just your local version of the search engine, while others question the sheer practicality."* Google agrees to forget [image: line] Information will only disappear from searches made in Europe. Queries piped through its sites outside the region will still show the contested data. On 13 May, the EU's court of justice ruled that links to "irrelevant" and outdated data on search engines should be erased on request. The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home, which appeared on Google's search results, infringed his privacy. Less innovation? On Friday, Google said that EU citizens who want their private details removed from the search engine will be able to do so by filling out an online form. However, they will need to provide links to the material they want removed, their country of origin, and a reason for their request. Individuals will also have to attach a valid photo identity. "Google often receives fraudulent removal requests from people impersonating others, trying to harm competitors, or improperly seeking to suppress legal information," the firm said. "To prevent this kind of abuse, we need to verify identity." However, in an interview given to the Financial Times , Google boss Larry Page said that although the firm would comply with the ruling, it could damage innovation. He also said the regulation would give cheer to repressive regimes. Mr Page said he regretted not being "more involved in a real debate" about privacy in Europe, and that the company would now try to "be more European". But, he warned, "as we regulate the internet, I think we're not going to see the kind of innovation we've seen". Mr Page added that the ruling would encourage "other governments that aren't as forward and progressive as Europe to do bad things". [image: line] [image: European Court of Justice, Luxembourg] People keen to get data removed from Google's index must: - Provide weblinks to the relevant material - Name their home country - Explain why the links should be removed - Supply photo ID to help Google guard against fraudulent applications [image: line break] -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Fri May 30 17:15:03 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 23:15:03 +0200 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> References: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> Message-ID: fyi http://policyreview.info/articles/news/google-spain-case-court-decision-privatises-public-sphere/291 and http://www.cambridge-code.org/googlespain.html 2014-05-30 18:53 GMT+02:00 John Curran : > On May 30, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > FYI re EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden, below. > > > > Coincidentally coming same day as Google acquiescience to EU mandates on > privacy right to be forgotten; which Google belatedly admits is trivial for > it to implement - makes today a very good day for Internet Rights and > Principles. In fact it is up already at: > https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch > Lest you EU netizens - forget where to look for the form. ; ) > > > > Presumably, Google will keep an archive of all of the "forgotten" links > somewhere, so that they may be promptly reinstated should they suddenly > become relevant? e.g. Lee McKnight decides to run for public office; > is there a form to ask for reinstatement of the omitted link information, > given that it is now relevant? Or somehow allow inclusion in the public > results after the indexing of the public information on the next pass? > When does the individual lose the right to be forgotten due to presence > in public life, how do journalists know the appropriate guidelines and > process to be followed in such contexts so that they may fulfill their > duties to the public? > > /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 > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri May 30 17:52:31 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:52:31 -0400 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: References: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> Message-ID: <1CF27CB1-2FE8-47E3-9181-AA54F00D3943@istaff.org> On May 30, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > > http://www.cambridge-code.org/googlespain.html An excellent list of papers/articles, several of which raise similar questions as mine about the temporary nature of "relevance"... Do any provide an answer? I am not taking a position either way, just seeking to understand of how the court felt that relevance changing in the future should be handled... 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 30 18:56:46 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 22:56:46 +0000 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> References: ,<68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> Message-ID: <3ed6edd261c7443e9528aa1ac89a03e5@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> First, if nominated, I will decline to serve. Second, I believe the EU 'forgetting' procedures will only permit/enable take-down requests by EU citizens to be mandatorily reviewed by Google. But...since the final procedures are not yet defined/announced, who knows what they will precisely cover....maybe the (alleged) fact some of my ancestors were alleged cattle rustlers/smugglers along the England/Scotland border some centuries ago would mean I might be covered...to your point of how far back in time things must be forgotten. Oops, I probably shouldn't have mentioned that. To any journalists lurking, no pictures please. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: John Curran Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 12:53 PM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link On May 30, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI re EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden, below. > > Coincidentally coming same day as Google acquiescience to EU mandates on privacy right to be forgotten; which Google belatedly admits is trivial for it to implement - makes today a very good day for Internet Rights and Principles. In fact it is up already at: https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch Lest you EU netizens - forget where to look for the form. ; ) Presumably, Google will keep an archive of all of the "forgotten" links somewhere, so that they may be promptly reinstated should they suddenly become relevant? e.g. Lee McKnight decides to run for public office; is there a form to ask for reinstatement of the omitted link information, given that it is now relevant? Or somehow allow inclusion in the public results after the indexing of the public information on the next pass? When does the individual lose the right to be forgotten due to presence in public life, how do journalists know the appropriate guidelines and process to be followed in such contexts so that they may fulfill their duties to the public? /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 nb at bollow.ch Sat May 31 05:43:08 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:43:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's attack on European sovereignty (was Re: Google sets up 'right to be forgotten' form...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140531114308.110799cc@quill> Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27631001 [..] > People keen to get data removed from Google's index must: > > - Provide weblinks to the relevant material > - Name their home country > - Explain why the links should be removed > - Supply photo ID to help Google guard against fraudulent > applications It seems that Google hates the ruling enough that they've intentionally set this up in such a way that it will create a serious risk of a Streisand Effect when the feature is actually used: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001077.html I expect that it should be a major discussion topic at the EuroDIG that now such decisions of a US based company, which flow out of the US perspective on what the boundary line should be between privacy rights and the rights of companies to disseminate information, seem to have greater power over Europeans than what is considered fundamental rights in Europe. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 31 06:07:05 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:07:05 +0200 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: <1CF27CB1-2FE8-47E3-9181-AA54F00D3943@istaff.org> References: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> <1CF27CB1-2FE8-47E3-9181-AA54F00D3943@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20140531120705.4562c77d@quill> John Curran wrote: > Do any provide an answer? I am not taking a position either > way, just seeking to understand of how the court felt that > relevance changing in the future should be handled... That wasn't part of the question that the court was asked to answer. The ruling implies only that in the kind of situation that you describe, the ruling will stop being applicable to the situation when the change of relevance has occurred. That said, I'm not sure that there is a significant issue here. When old information suddenly becomes relevant again, I'd expect that someone who remembers it will blog about it, and that blog post would automatically not be covered by the decision of removing specific URLs of old documents from the search index. 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Sat May 31 10:06:38 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:06:38 +0200 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: <20140531120705.4562c77d@quill> References: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> <1CF27CB1-2FE8-47E3-9181-AA54F00D3943@istaff.org> <20140531120705.4562c77d@quill> Message-ID: This is not the point, Norbert: 1-the ECJ cannot judge on Art. 11 (freedom of expression): this competence is for the courts of the member states. 2-the ECJ states Art.7 and 8, I quote "override in general" the public interest 3-the data was public data. And it had to be published (this is why it hasn't been deleted) 4-the ECJ decided, that public data cannot be deleted, but its reachability must be restricted > this is not compatible with Art. 11, which warrants: *Freedom of expression and information1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.* Since when has public data a date of expiry? The privat sphere must be protected. But also the public sphere needs to be protected from privatization. And this is not what the ECJ is doing. Quite on the contrary as many scholars have been explaining the last weeks: e.g. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2014/05/13/is-the-eu-compelling-google-to-become-about-me/ http://thejusticegap.com/2014/05/right-forgotten/ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/15/google-vs-spain http://motherboard.vice.com/read/will-europes-right-to-be-forgotten-actually-hurt-the-web-we-asked-an-expert http://policyreview.info/articles/news/google-spain-case-court-decision-privatises-public-sphere/291 Best Lorena 2014-05-31 12:07 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : > John Curran wrote: > > > Do any provide an answer? I am not taking a position either > > way, just seeking to understand of how the court felt that > > relevance changing in the future should be handled... > > That wasn't part of the question that the court was asked to answer. > > The ruling implies only that in the kind of situation that you > describe, the ruling will stop being applicable to the situation when > the change of relevance has occurred. > > That said, I'm not sure that there is a significant issue here. When > old information suddenly becomes relevant again, I'd expect that someone > who remembers it will blog about it, and that blog post would > automatically not be covered by the decision of removing specific URLs > of old documents from the search index. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 31 15:27:04 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 21:27:04 +0200 Subject: Trivial to implement "to be forgotten" (was: Re: [governance] [IP] On Monday EPIC Freedom Awards to Allen, Amash, The Guardian, Snowden + Google right to be forgotten link In-Reply-To: References: <68823BB5-FA6D-40E1-99CB-BADFB52F76CB@istaff.org> <1CF27CB1-2FE8-47E3-9181-AA54F00D3943@istaff.org> <20140531120705.4562c77d@quill> Message-ID: <20140531212704.0404cba7@quill> Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > This is not the point, Norbert: > 1-the ECJ cannot judge on Art. 11 (freedom of expression): this > competence is for the courts of the member states. Untrue. Of course the ECJ can rule on the application of any of the fundamental rights, in relation to the question that is asked of the court. > 2-the ECJ states Art.7 and 8, I quote "override in general" the public > interest I and Matthias Kettemann and possibly others have answered your misinterpretation of those words already; I will not waste my time on repeating that discussion. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t