From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Nov 30 17:58:39 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:58:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Hi Carlos you wrrote < Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a.   Fraternal ? Really ?? BTW  : how do you know I'm "siting comfortably somewhere in Europe" ? For your information, I 'm just back at home from my five hours trip to Geneva, where I participated -and actively contributed  as one of the rare CS participants- to the CSTD 2014-2015 Intersessionel Panel. I'll transmit later a short report of it to the lists. BTW, my e-mail address ends with .fr, indicating, as you may know, I'm living in France. In turn, I'm wondering how it's possible for "a Brazilian, from Sao Paolo and living in Rio" to get an e-mail address ending by .ca ...  But I must admit, I'm not an Internet insider :-))   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack         > Message du 30/11/14 19:18 > De : "Carlos Afonso" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "SureshRamasubramanian" , "parminderitforchange.net" > Copie à : "HartmutRichardGlaser" , "bestbitslists.bestbits.net" > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw > "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time > except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president > and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 > million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand > people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian > people. > > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind > of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a > look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe > since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Carlos > > > > Yoiu wote : > > > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took > > the reigns > > of the government of Brazil. > > > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados > > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and > > Dilma's "softened" policy. > > > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of > > treatment" ... > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > > > De : "Carlos Afonso" > > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , > > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > > "parminder at itforchange.net" > > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , > > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > > > > > Dear people, > > > > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as > > president. As > > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > > massive > > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco > > the > > > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > > > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a > > sort of > > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > > NGOs > > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > > them) -- > > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > > there is > > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the > > reigns > > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be > > the other > > > way around. > > > > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > > > > > fraternal regards > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > (*) See, for example, this report: > > > > > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > > > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br > > has now come > > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and > > ICANN (basically > > > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > > > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave > > the world > > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the > > basic lessons > > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > > economic and > > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, > > especially at the > > > >> global level! > > > >> > > > > > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that > > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic > > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but > > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain > > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this > > subject. > > > > > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > > Brazilian > > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a > > great loss, > > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > > community > > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be > > taken for > > > > > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global > > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you > > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently > > doesn't share. > > > > > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global > > governance > > > >> initiative.* > > > >> > > > > > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of > > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us > > all from such support. > > > > > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > > together > > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil > > society offer > > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > > interests > > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future > > generations. Let > > > > > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of > > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. > > You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 30 19:10:16 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:40:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: You know, there is this semi miraculous entity called a registrar. You pay them the required fee and they will register you a .ca domain, which you might want even I'd you don't live in Canada, if, for example, your initials are CA. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Dec-2014, at 04:28, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > BTW, my e-mail address ends with .fr, indicating, as you may know, I'm living in France. In turn, I'm wondering how it's possible for "a Brazilian, from Sao Paolo and living in Rio" to get an e-mail address ending by .ca ... But I must admit, I'm not an Internet insider :-)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Nov 30 22:56:25 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:26:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> Grande CA, You can be sure that not only will Jean-Louis "look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis", he will be unhappy with it. But of course that does not mean he, or many of us need not be concerned with Brazil's role in the NMI. The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil participation in a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business elite of the world, is simply that many of us consider Brazil a global leader in supporting policies programmes for social justice, human rights, democracy. As Parminder mentioned in an earlier post, the WSF, which took birth in Brazil sees itself (inter alia) as the antidote to the "disastrous neoliberal policies" that WEF is associated with/promotes. Since you are also concerned about the dangers of neo-liberalism, the following excerpt may be useful read: The *World Social Forum* (WSF, Portuguese : /Fórum Social Mundial/ [ˈfɔɾũ soˈsjaw mũdʒiˈaw] ) is an annual meeting of civil society organizations, first held in Brazil , which offers a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future through the championing of counter-hegemonic globalization . Some^// consider the World Social Forum to be a physical manifestation of global civil society , as it brings together non governmental organizations , advocacy campaigns as well as formal and informal social movements seeking international solidarity . The World Social Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space – plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism ."^[1] ...It tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos , Switzerland . This date is consciously picked to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in opposition to the World Economic Forum . Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum Hope Brazil will really rethink its participation in the NMI. warm fraternal regards Guru On Sunday 30 November 2014 11:48 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one > saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other > time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for > president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil > has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 > thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of > Brazilian people. > > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind > of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take > a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe > since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> Dear Carlos >> >> Yoiu wote : >> >> < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns >> of the government of Brazil. >> >> You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados >> and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and >> Dilma's "softened" policy. >> >> BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of >> treatment" ... >> >> Best regards >> >> Jean-louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 >> > De : "Carlos Afonso" >> > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , >> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> "parminder at itforchange.net" >> > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br >> > >> > Dear people, >> > >> > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as >> president. As >> > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive >> > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco >> the >> > thousands of people cheering Lula. >> > >> > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social >> movements of >> > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a >> sort of >> > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs >> > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- >> > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is >> > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the >> reigns >> > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be >> the other >> > way around. >> > >> > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> > >> > fraternal regards >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > (*) See, for example, this report: >> > >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> > >> > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br >> has now come >> > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >> ICANN (basically >> > >> doing US's bidding) game. >> > > >> > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> > > >> > > >> > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave >> the world >> > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >> basic lessons >> > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >> economic and >> > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, >> especially at the >> > >> global level! >> > >> >> > > >> > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> > > >> > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this >> subject. >> > > >> > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >> Brazilian >> > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a >> great loss, >> > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive >> community >> > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be >> taken for >> > > >> > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global >> progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you >> continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently >> doesn't share. >> > > >> > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you >> come out >> > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global >> governance >> > >> initiative.* >> > >> >> > > >> > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of >> extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us >> all from such support. >> > > >> > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >> together >> > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >> society offer >> > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the >> interests >> > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future >> generations. Let >> > > >> > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of >> inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. >> You don't and have never represented it all. >> > > >> > > --srs >> > > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 00:02:26 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:02:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> You're using a different meaning of "defined" than I intended, sorry, my fault for being ambiguous. By "defined" I meant that for example that ARIN is the RIR for North American (roughly) and then the ARIN region is defined by a list of nation-states. https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rirs/ARINcountries.html There are several exceptions, mostly small island entities which are roughly in the ARIN vicinity (e.g., St Pierre & Miquelon, British Virgin Islands) but not strictly nation-states. And a few outliers (e.g., St Helena) which...had to go some place. Nonetheless the point should be self-evident: The RIR regions are defined by a set of nation-states (e.g., ARIN: USA, Canada, Jamaica) with some small exceptions for practical reasons. RIPE NCC is the same. So to go back to the original point (not by you, what I was responding to): Stating that IP address allocation authority should not be "Westphalian" seems, I'll use the word again, disingenuous. Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE NCC region. On October 31, 2014 at 20:24 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > > > > On 30.10.2014 г., at 22:19, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > 2. > > > > Change subject slightly, not a response to anything below: > > > > In reference to the comments about a "Westphalian" view of address > > allocation: > > > > We do currently have a regional division of organizations for address > > allocation, APNIC (Asia-Pacific), AfrNIC (Africa), LACNIC (Latin > > Amer), ARIN (N. Amer.), and RIPE (Europe.) > > > > And these in turn are defined by the nation-states they serve. > > Some of us are old enough to know, and hopefully not old enough to still remember... > > All these were built later, using the model of the very successful RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC was conceived, designed and built by a bunch of European folk, who were then involved in building the informal pan European data network, loosely based on internet protocols, that later grew up to become today's internet (after being fast adopted by our friends across the pond). > > There was never, ever, any government or even nation-state element in how it was all organized. In fact nation-state was at one time considered, by experimenting with national last resort IP address registries, but was ultimately abandoned because the community was not using it (I know first hand, as I was running one of these myself). > > The RIPE NCC is also a very interesting example, as it has members from a very broadly defined "European" region. It would have served much wider audience (again, on strictly netizen based representation), if it was not for international politics, that pushed for the creation of more strictly regional groups. > > Anyway, most people will happily ignore history and draw conclusions from whatever fits their (current) agenda. Again, human nature. > > I was today at a meeting with our government, and they insisted that "multistakeholderism", "as they were told by ICANN" means, that governments should have more role in managing the Internet. They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe with a liberal regime where the government does not control the Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed. > Notice a pattern? > > Daniel -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sat Nov 1 02:30:41 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:30:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> Message-ID: Barry, On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > So to go back to the original point (not by you, what I was responding > to): Stating that IP address allocation authority should not be > "Westphalian" seems, I'll use the word again, disingenuous. In no way can IP address allocation be considered Westphalian, at least as I understand the term. In my view, IP address allocation authority derives from the acceptance of the network operational community to accept the authority of the registry system. If you disagree, what do you think would happen if (say) the government of West Elbonia decided to "redistribute" 192.74.137.0/24 to themselves. My experience has been that ISPs care a bit more about contracts and getting paid than what some far off nation in which they have no customers might decide on any given day. Nation-states have the ability to compel entities within their borders to do things they might not otherwise desire to do. In the context of IP address allocation, a nation-state can compel ISPs within that nation-state's borders to ignore the allocations of the registry system, however the impact of that action would mostly be to disconnect the nation-state from the Internet unless ISPs outside of the nation-state agree. This would be ... unlikely as it is a sure path to pure chaos. By and large, nation-states prefer not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, so they haven't (to date) ignored the existing registry system, despite its numerous warts. Life might get a little more interesting with IPv4 exhaustion, but I hope not. > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > NCC region. I believe the fact that the IEPG/FNC/IAB/RIRs decided to split up the planet on semi-arbitrary geopolitical boundaries was purely a convenience. It was not related to allocation authority. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:02:36 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:02:36 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <326787D7-ECE4-435F-AEE7-7FFFC434FDF9@difference.com.au> On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:08 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical. Well, I for one find that JNC positions, which are effectively critical of all current models to some extent, where more directed to practical positive outcomes. > Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have “stakes”)? Simple question. Disingenous question, as you are sbsolutely aware that many on this list would regard your characterisation of multi-stakeholderism as wildly misleading. And, for that matter, many would regard JNC positions as frequently, while rhetorically applauding democracy, as in practical terms leading in the opposite direction. > Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position In some respects, it may be, considering what you regard it as evolving from. If you regard democracy as being strict majoritarianism in all things then MSism surely stands in opposition to that, but that is an incredibly naive position on democracy held by practically no one. > – that is that rule by and for the people has now somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and their allies. The view of multi-stakeholder processes you have is one that I feel can only be maintained by dedicated non-engagement. > Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance. Indeed. And it should continue to do so. This is not, however, necessarily in opposition to multi-stakeholderism, especially in transnational fora in which democratic mechanisms do not practically exist. > But in the absence of a denial of these propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would appear that that too has become obsolete. Siva simply said he didn't feel that discussing this particular issue at this point in time, which would require first a thorough debunking of your constant urge to mis-characterise both multi-stakeholderism and democracy, is not a high priority. Your efforts to construe a desire not to engage as meaning what you want it to mean are an empty rhetorical position that proves nothing. Please stop. Regards David > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein > Cc: 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP' > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines policy that affects you? > > True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where to hold their annual event, for example. > > On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" wrote: > > No, I don’t think so, Gene. > > Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward. > > I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent. > > M > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > M > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > To: 'Sivasubramanian M' > Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? > > M > > From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos andkratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > But maybe I’m missing something. > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > If you take a look at my > blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my > argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in > competition with democratic governance. > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:23:12 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:23:12 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:19 am, michael gurstein wrote: > As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”. In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again? You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)? Regards David > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greekdemos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > M > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” > > And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! > > That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): > > http://bestbits.net/lf/ > > So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): > > Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations. > with the following definitions of some included terms > > 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. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. > > Stakeholder: > A term borrowed from Project Management. > > ” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “ > > and the derivative: > > Multistakeholder process: > A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. > > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:33:12 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:33:12 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein wrote: > The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. So, if there has been a broad multi-stakeholder process, that includes civil society, government, representatives of minorities etc that has achieved consensus between all of them - you think a policy that was strongly disagreed with by civil society, business, many minority groups, should be overruled if a simple majority of elected representatives vote for it? (setting aside the practical issues of creating a transnational group of elected representatives etc just for the moment) > Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. But, of course, any decision making that only includes the foxes would not be multi-stakeholder. Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. Cheers David > > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM > To: David Allen > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear David Allen, > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > David > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:57:09 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:57:09 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 8:51 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… The ability to self-select does not imply that participants are not representative of anyone. For example I usually participate in ICANN and IGF processes as a representative of an organisation with several hundred dues paying members, and must from time to time face re-election. But in a sense I am still self-selected, as I could still participate as an individual if I wished, and I participate as a volunteer not an employee. > Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … But using the term 'self-selected elite' pejoratively becomes nonsensical iff you use it this broadly. Are you literally arguing that it is desirable for those who lack the skills and knowledge and resources to *directly* participate in policy processes? And even if we lower the barriers to entry, unless we lower them to practically zero, those who fully participate will always be somewhat of an elite in that sense. If we take ICANN for example, it is unlikely that we will get to the point at which a majority of the worlds population are even able to explain why the domain name system is. Now, we can all agree that it is a good thing if the interests of those who lack the skills, knowledge and resources to participate in policy processes are represented, and surely civil society participation aids that goal. And we can all agree that lowering the barriers to participation so that full participation is not restricted to those able to find funding from somewhere for travel if needed, requiring fluent English, sometimes requiring understanding of fairly complex communication tools, etc. But if we use 'elite' so broadly that it includes anyone able to find the time to understand the issues and spend time participating, then directly participating in policy processes will always be restricted to an elite, and using the term pejoratively is nonsensical. Regards David > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? > > On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: > > The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. > > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM > To: David Allen > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear David Allen, > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > David > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 1 05:57:04 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:57:04 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427D7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> David: Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. Wolfgang: Here is another joke from the good old times which is a Little better for the chicken: A chicken proposes a Joint Venture to a pig: "Lets ´start a "ham-and-egg-business". I give the eggs and you the ham :-))) w -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 13:32:20 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:32:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG & EU Council References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427E3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141031_enhanced_confusion_european_council_and_governance_of_the_internet/ 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 bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 13:35:28 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:35:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> On November 1, 2014 at 04:49 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa > historically I would call that geographic, one can still draw a continuous circle around it spanning the Mediterranean. It wasn't haphazard certainly. Of course one could attribute other motives, that the "circle" mostly covers the non-black (dominant) population of Europe and N Africa. I suppose the real question is what was the question? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 13:42:43 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:42:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I'll add only a few points 1. "Openness"-I've discussed "openness" and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I'm delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting -for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emergi ng-data-divide/ The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations-justice, freedom, democracy-rather it is "openness" as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by "openness" is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique). Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention-a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician's rationalizations and resistances to being "open"-i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape. If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical - less than true believing - its not because I don't believe in this goal of "openness" (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed-closed systems, closed doors, closed minds-you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-developm ent%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to "open development" or "open ICT4D" is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered. White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction 2. Transparency Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of "transparency and MSism", it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included. As I'm sure you know the notion of "transparency" is generally yoked with the notion of "accountability". This isn't simply for catch phrase purposes. "Transparency and accountability" are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other. To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability. The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how "transparency" as you present it is actually linked to any structures of "accountability" is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting. It is great if MS process are fully transparent. But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. Democracy, at least according to any document I've ever seen, is fundamentally about "accountability"-accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests-ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. "Transparency" is one of the necessary tools for achieving this "accountability". a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight. Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a "principle" on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle. 3. Consensus My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of "consensus" as a governance principle. As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers). Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course "consensus") I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good. Unfortunately your "consensus principle" is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. The TL:DR summary - Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. And my impression is that the JNC position: - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 13:44:36 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:44:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21589.7172.147989.372149@world.std.com> If one wants to pursue the "geographic region" line of reasoning then we have to note that Mexico, although located in North America, is a member of LACNIC. All these constructs are messy, though not overly so -- is the problem ARIN v. LACNIC, or Latin America v. North America? But it's still accurate that the five RIRs are defined as a collection of specific nation-states (a few exceptions, mostly territories etc) roughly within five geographic loci. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sat Nov 1 14:06:50 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:06:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: <297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> References: ,<297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> The following is a chapter of a draft report on Ensuring utmost transparency -- Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The RFC is closing in a week or so, feedback very welcome!. If you want to tweet: https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/523060059098849280 //Erik The Constitutional Principle of Openness under European Law Parliament has Imposed upon Itself a Commitment to Conduct its Activities with the Utmost Transparency Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament provides that "1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." The European Parliament has been a champion in promoting not only openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents, but also that the EU Courts should accept that openness constitutes a general principle of EU law, and that the right to information is as such a fundamental human right. In Netherlands v Council, the European Parliament argued as follows: In this connection, the Parliament avers that, whilst it is competent for the institutions to adopt appropriate measures for their internal organization with a view to ensuring their sound operation and the proper conduct of their procedures, the principle of openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents entailed thereby constitute essential requirements of democracy and therefore cannot be treated as organizational matters purely internal to the institutions. In this context, the Parliament adverts to the democratic nature of the Community legal order. It maintains moreover that the requirement for openness constitutes a general principle common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States which is also enshrined in Community law. Lastly, it argues that the right to information, of which access to documents constitutes the corollary, is a fundamental human right recognized by various international instruments. In its judgment, the Court stressed that the domestic legislation of most Member States enshrines, in a general manner, the public’s right of access to documents held by public authorities as a constitutional or legislative principle. The Court found that this trend "discloses a progressive affirmation of individuals’ right of access to documents held by public authorities" and that accordingly, the Council deemed it necessary to amend the rules governing its internal organisation, which had hitherto been based on the principle of confidentiality. The Court added that, "so long as the Community legislature has not adopted general rules on the right of public access to documents held by the Community institutions, the institutions must take measures as to the processing of such requests by virtue of their power of internal organisation, which authorises them to take appropriate measures in order to ensure their internal operation in conformity with the interests of good administration". While dated, this analysis is still interesting for at least three reasons. First, the legal doctrine is divided as to whether or not it is possible to interpret the Netherlands v Council judgment as authority for the existence of a fundamental right of access to documents.[6] Second, when interpreting Rule 115, the relevant legal question is whether or not internal rules of the institutions may confer a substantive legal right to access to documents, to information, and/or to data on EU citizens. Third, the Court clearly links the issue of public access to documents to the nascent principle of good administration. According to the case law of the Court, the purpose of the Community institutions’ internal Rules of Procedure is to organise the internal functioning of its services in the interests of good administration. The essential purpose of such rules, particularly those with regard to the organisation of deliberations and the adoption of decisions, is to ensure the smooth conduct of the decision-making procedure. It follows that natural or legal persons may normally not rely on an alleged breach of such rules, as they are not intended to ensure protection for individuals. Therefore, internal rules cannot be regarded as measures conferring on European citizens a substantive right of access to documents, to information, or to data held by the EU institutions. They are not intended to vest in European citizens a formal ”right to know” what is going on within the European institutions, which is a prerequisite in a participatory democracy, where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen”. In the absence of general rules on the right of public access to information or to data held by the EU institutions, European citizens’ ”right to know” and to participate ”as closely as possible” in the decision-making process must therefore be found elsewhere. As a preliminary conclusion, Rule 115 does not in itself confer any rights on European citizens. Nevertheless, as compliance with internal Rules of Procedure may constitute an essential procedural requirement, and may in some circumstances have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, their breach can give rise to an action for annulment before the EU Courts. Indeed, procedural rules laid down in Rule 115 constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and its infringement leads to the nullity of the measure thereby vitiated. In the light of the Court's judgment in European Parliament v. Council, that rule is an expression of the democratic principles on which the European Union is founded. In particular, the Court has already stated that the Parliament’s involvement in the decision-making process is the reflection, at the EU level, of the fundamental democratic principle that the people should participate in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly.[7] Not only has Parliament imposed upon itself that it shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, but its actions shall also conform with the Principle of Openness enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter, and the Right of Access to Information in Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Principle of Openness and the Right of Access to Information: A Basis for Imposing Free Software and Open Standards ? The first real step towards allowing the public a right of access to documents held by the Community institutions dates back to 7 February 1992 when the Member States signed the Final Act to the Maastricht Treaty.[8]. In Declaration No. 17 to that Act, the Member States pointed to the close connection between the transparency of the decision-making process and the democratic nature of the Community institutions. Nowadays, the principle of openness in European Union law has solid roots, as the very text of the Rule 115 makes clear, in the fundamental Treaties of the European Union. The Treaties Article 1(2) and Article 10(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU) states that in the European Union decisions are to be taken as "openly as possible" and as closely as possible to the citizen. In this respect, Article 15(1) TFEU states that in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible. According to the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing in or having its registered office in a Member State, is to have a right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with that paragraph. Moreover, according to the second subparagraph of Article 15(3), the general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents are to be determined by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. In accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, each institution, body, office or agency is to ensure that its proceedings are transparent and is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU. It should be noted at the outset that the General Court has held that Article 1, para. 2 EU and Article 255 EC did not have direct effect, and could therefore not form the basis of a request for disclosure of a document of an institution. The first provision was not regarded as "clear"[9], and the second was not considered to lay down an unconditional obligation, since its implementation was held to be dependent on the adoption of subsequent measures. [10] In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11], and to the "principle of transparency" [12], in support of a finding that the previous internal rules of access to documents of the institutions must be interpreted in the light of the "principle of the right to information" and the principle of proportionality. The issue has obviously divided the General Court, which has also stated: For the purpose of applying Article 4 of Regulation EC No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the concept of a document must be distinguished from that of information. The public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions covers only documents and not information in the wider meaning of the word and does not imply a duty on the part of the institutions to reply to any request for information from an individual.[13] To date, no clear guidance on this issue has been provided by the Court. In Council v Hautala, the Court did not find it necessary to rule on "the existence of a principle of the right to information" in European Union law.[14] Based on this lack of clarity in the case-law of the EU Courts, in Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB, the ECB contested the very existence in EU law of a fundamental legal principle which provides for a general right of access to its documents and to those of the EU institutions. It argued that although arguments based on such a principle have been raised on numerous occasions before the EU judicature, none of the EU Courts has considered it appropriate to examine them. In its judgement, the General Court held that "even supposing that the right of access to the documents held by the Community public authorities, including the ECB, may be regarded as a fundamental right protected by the Community legal order as a general principle of law", the plea of illegality in respect of Article 23.3 of the ECB Rules of Procedure, based on the alleged infringement of such a principle, could not be upheld. The General Court pointed out that fundamental rights cannot be understood as ‘unfettered prerogatives’ and that it is ‘legitimate that these rights should, if necessary, be subject to certain limits justified by the overall objectives pursued by the Community, on condition that the substance of these rights is left untouched" [15]. The General Court held that, as regards the right of access to documents, reasons related to the protection of the public interest or a private interest may legitimately restrict that right.[16] Be that as it may. As Advocate General Poiares Maduro has correctly pointed out, the fact remains that henceforth the existence of the right of access to documents of the institutions is no longer based on internal measures adopted by the institutions, with which they are bound to comply, or even on Regulation 1049/2001, but on a provision of constitutional import.[17] The Court has in this regard clarified that the "principle of openness" stated in a general manner in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is "crystallised" by Regulation 1049/2001.[18] An alleged infringement of the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is therefore in the Court's view not distinct from a plea alleging a wrongful application of the exceptions referred to in Regulation No 1049/2001. The existence of a "principle of openness" is confirmed by Art. 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states "In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible." Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Similiarly, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’) also acknowledges this right: ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.’ Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 thereby establish a right of access to documents of the institutions. In the context of the European Parliament documents, it should be noted that Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament[19] provides that documents and electronic records which a Member has received, drafted or sent are not to be treated as Parliament documents unless they have been tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. As Advocate general Kokkot has noted, the documents relating to a legislative procedure which are in the possession of a rapporteur must in principle be regarded as being in the possession of the Parliament. It will at some point in time be necessary to decide whether Article 15 TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow such documents to be excluded from the right of access in the future.[20] Moreover, Art. 10 TEU regarding the principle of democracy (especially Article 10(3), echoes the second paragraph of Article 1) and Article 15 TFEU, dealing with good governance, openness, transparency and access to documents. Article 10 in the European Convention of Human Rights The development of the principle of openness in EU law has been accompanied by a parallell development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In Guerra and Others v. Italy, the Strasbourg Court held that freedom to receive information under Art. 10 of the ECHR merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him. It states that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of that case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion [21] Similiarly, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért concerned a request for access to information by a non-governmental organisation for the purposes of contributing to public debate. Here, the Court noted that it had recently advanced towards a broader interpretation of the notion of the “freedom to receive information” and thereby towards the recognition of a right of access to information.[22] In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[23], the Court unanimously recalled, in its reasoning on admissibility, that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a "right of access to information". The judgment has, in our view correctly, been interpreted as having "established implicitly the right of access”, in that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a right of access to information.[24] In a concurring opinion, judges Sajó and Vučinić highlighted the general need to interpret Article 10 in conformity with developments in international law regarding freedom of information, which entails access to information held by public bodies referring, in particular, to Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 [25]. The Human Rights Committee has in turn stressed both the proactive and the reactive dimensions of the freedom of expression and freedom of information. Article 19, paragraph 2 embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies. Such information includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source, and the date of production. As the Committee has observed in its General Comment No. 16, regarding Article 17 of the Covenant, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Paragraph 3 of the General Comment provides as follows: 3.Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. Moreover, to give effect to the right of access to information, States Parties should proactively put in the public domain government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective, and practical access to such information. In regard to freedom of expression, the Committee has linked it with the developments in information and communication technologies: 15. States Parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto. The principle of openness and the right of access to information are directed ‒ among other things ‒ at ensuring that decisions are taken as openly as possible and and closely as possible to the citizens, in other words, it is a basic democratic tenet, where citizens must see what happens within the institutions (which is one of the means through which accountability of the institutions and their agents is ensured) and the institutions have an obligation to at least listen to what citizens have to say (in other words, participation and representation of interests). [26]. Legislative Openness Ever since the Treaty of Amsterdam the concept of "the legislative" has had a place in the language of the EU Treaties. Under the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) EC the Council was already required to define "the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity" to allow the right of access to documents under Article 255(1) EC to be exercised. In the realm of secondary legislation, Recital 6 in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 states that "[w]ider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity." The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined both the right of access to documents of the institutions, on the one hand, and referred to the special consideration to be given to the ‘legislative capacity’ of the Council, on the other. It has been argued that , this indicated that the appropriate context for exercising the right of access was where the Council was acting in a "legislative capacity", thus acknowledging the close relationship that, in principle, exists between legislative procedures and the principles of openness and transparency [27]. On a comparative note, and despite the differences that may exist between national legislation and EU "legislation", or between Member State legislatures and the EU "legislature", the "legislative procedure" by which the Council and the European Parliament are bound, is conceptually very close to the national "legislative procedure", speaking from the point of view of its underlying purpose and thus the principles on which it must be based. In the end, they have in common the need to satisfy the imperative requirements of democratic legitimacy. As the Advocate General correctly pointed out in Case C‑280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe [28]: "’Legislating’ is, by definition, a law-making activity that in a democratic society can only occur through the use of a procedure that is public in nature and, in that sense, ‘transparent’. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ascribe to ‘law’ the virtue of being the expression of the will of those that must obey it, which is the very foundation of its legitimacy as an indisputable edict. In a representative democracy, it must be possible for citizens to find out about the legislative procedure, since if this were not so, citizens would be unable to hold their representatives politically accountable, as they must be by virtue of their electoral mandate. In the context of this public procedure, transparency therefore plays a key role that is somewhat different from its role in administrative procedures. While, in administrative procedures, transparency serves the very specific purpose of ensuring that the authorities are subject to the rule of law, in the legislative procedure it serves the purpose of legitimising the law itself and with it the legal order as a whole." In its judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council,[29] the Court held that it is for the Council to balance the particular interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming from increased openness. It states that when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, it is particularly relevant that openness be considered, given that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy, and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. The following Recitals in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 are relevant in this respect: "‘(1) The second subparagraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. (2) Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (6) Wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated powers, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the institutions’ decision-making process. Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent." The Court has confirmed that the considerations of legislative openness are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity: "Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by enabling citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis for a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights".[30] The theoretical underpinnings of the Principle of Openness and of legislative openness has thus acquired a solid foundation in the Treaties and in the case-law of the court. However, due to the eternal tide wave and purported conflict between Openness and Efficiency, Parliament has in practice struggled to live up to the Principle of Openness by resorting to informal decision-making procedures. As Nikoleta Yordanova has correctly noted: [31] Traditionally, the parliamentary committees have offered important venues for political involvement of extra-parliamentary actors due to the openness and transparency of their meetings. In the past fifteen years, however, the EP has been resorting ever more often to informal decision-making, whereby the parliamentary decisions are not reached internally following deliberations and debate in committee and plenary but in secluded trilogue meetings of limited number of representatives of the three EU legislative institutions – the EP, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. (...) The implications of the switch to an informal mode of legislating for representation in the EP are twofold – decreased input and, potentially also, output legitimacy. Specifically, the decrease in committee influence has curtailed the channels of representation of interest groups to affect decision-making, depriving them of an effective tool to monitor and shape the legislative process and outcomes by raising timely demands. A possible implication of this is diminished receptiveness of legislators to constituents’ interests. Moreover, the lack of transparency of the secluded inter-institutional meetings has limited the ability of constituents to monitor their representatives’ policy bargaining, positions and the concessions, and, consequently, to evaluate how responsive legislators are to their preferences and demands. The Need for Lawmakers to Deliberate in Private The European Union, the Member States and 19 other States are parties to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Convention’), which entered into force on 30 October 2001. The Convention is based on three ‘pillars’ – access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Its preamble includes the following recitals: ‘Recognising that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns, Aiming thereby to further the accountability of and transparency in decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment, Recognising the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this Convention in their proceedings’. The second sentence of Article 2(2) allows Member States to exclude from the scope of the Directive bodies otherwise falling within the definition of ‘public authority’, ‘when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity’. The Convention was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, (3) the annex to which contains a declaration by the European Community (‘the Declaration’) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: ‘In relation to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention the European Community invites Parties to the Convention to take note of Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive]. These provisions give Member States of the European Community the possibility, in exceptional cases and under strictly specified conditions, to exclude certain institutions and bodies from the rules on review procedures in relation to decisions on requests for information. Therefore the ratification by the European Community of the Aarhus Convention encompasses any reservation by a Member State of the European Community to the extent that such a reservation is compatible with Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive].’ In ratifying the Convention on 20 May 2005, Sweden lodged a reservation which, in so far as is relevant, reads as follows: ‘Sweden lodges a reservation in relation to Article 9.1 with regard to access to a review procedure before a court of law of decisions taken by the Parliament, the Government and Ministers on issues involving the release of official documents.’ In accordance with Directive 2003/4,[32] public authorities must in principle be required to make environmental information held by or for them available to any applicant at his request. However, the Directive permits Member States to exclude public bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of a ‘public authority’. In addition, access may be refused to certain types of document, or if disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings of authorities where such confidentiality is provided for by law. In her opinion in Flachglas Torgau, AG Sharpstone summarized the dilemma as follows:[33] The performance of both judicial and legislative functions could be impaired if information of all kinds concerning each and every stage of the process – analysing the relevant issues and data, deriving conclusions from that analysis and formulating a final decision – could be demanded of right at all times by any member of the public. It seems reasonable to assume that considerations of that kind were in the minds of those who initially drafted the first of the instruments concerned and have remained, albeit implicitly, in the minds of those who have participated in the drafting of the subsequent instruments. Yet it is by no means desirable, nor would it appear consistent with the overall thrust of the Convention or the Directive, for legislative or judicial activity to take place in impenetrable secrecy. It is generally considered necessary, in order to ensure the rule of law and democratic government, for both courts of law and legislative assemblies to operate in the presence of the public (or at least of the media as an intermediary) other than in wholly exceptional circumstances – and it is, moreover, generally accepted that such circumstances are more common in the course of judicial than of legislative activity. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, therefore, in neither case should decisions be taken on the basis of facts, or for reasons, which are concealed from citizens. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 1 November 2014 18:42 To: 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I’ll add only a few points 1. “Openness”—I’ve discussed “openness” and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I’m delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/ The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations—justice, freedom, democracy—rather it is “openness” as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by “openness” is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique). Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention—a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician’s rationalizations and resistances to being “open”—i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape. If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical – less than true believing – its not because I don’t believe in this goal of “openness” (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed—closed systems, closed doors, closed minds—you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered. White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction 2. Transparency Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of “transparency and MSism”, it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included. As I’m sure you know the notion of “transparency” is generally yoked with the notion of “accountability”. This isn’t simply for catch phrase purposes. “Transparency and accountability” are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other. To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability. The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how “transparency” as you present it is actually linked to any structures of “accountability” is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting. It is great if MS process are fully transparent. But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. Democracy, at least according to any document I’ve ever seen, is fundamentally about “accountability”—accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests—ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. “Transparency” is one of the necessary tools for achieving this “accountability”… a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight. Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a “principle” on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle. 3. Consensus My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of “consensus” as a governance principle. As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers). Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course “consensus”) I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good. Unfortunately your “consensus principle” is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. The TL:DR summary - Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. And my impression is that the JNC position: - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 14:22:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:22:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <29a601cff600$d901a3f0$8b04ebd0$@gmail.com> As a matter of fact I do think that democratic decision making processes should take into account the outcome of MS (and other) consultations but should ultimately decide matters of public policy on the basis of the broad public interest. Don’t you agree? M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:33 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein wrote: The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. So, if there has been a broad multi-stakeholder process, that includes civil society, government, representatives of minorities etc that has achieved consensus between all of them - you think a policy that was strongly disagreed with by civil society, business, many minority groups, should be overruled if a simple majority of elected representatives vote for it? (setting aside the practical issues of creating a transnational group of elected representatives etc just for the moment) Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. But, of course, any decision making that only includes the foxes would not be multi-stakeholder. Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. Cheers David The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 14:22:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:22:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <29ab01cff600$da5b6790$8f1236b0$@gmail.com> David, It is actually rather simple… You either have as your aspirational fundamental principle of governance—“Democracy” i.e. the rule of and for the people or something else, as in your case MSism as the rule of and for unaccountable (at your urging I’ll replace “self-selected” with the commensurable term “unaccountable”), “self” interested elites/stakeholders. You either try to reform existing systems to become more democratic (including finding ways of ensuring that the range of non-elite voices are part of governance processes) or you look for ways of replacing less than fully democratic systems with unaccountable elite driven MS systems. So which side are you on? M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:57 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25 Oct 2014, at 8:51 pm, michael gurstein wrote: Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… The ability to self-select does not imply that participants are not representative of anyone. For example I usually participate in ICANN and IGF processes as a representative of an organisation with several hundred dues paying members, and must from time to time face re-election. But in a sense I am still self-selected, as I could still participate as an individual if I wished, and I participate as a volunteer not an employee. Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … But using the term 'self-selected elite' pejoratively becomes nonsensical iff you use it this broadly. Are you literally arguing that it is desirable for those who lack the skills and knowledge and resources to *directly* participate in policy processes? And even if we lower the barriers to entry, unless we lower them to practically zero, those who fully participate will always be somewhat of an elite in that sense. If we take ICANN for example, it is unlikely that we will get to the point at which a majority of the worlds population are even able to explain why the domain name system is. Now, we can all agree that it is a good thing if the interests of those who lack the skills, knowledge and resources to participate in policy processes are represented, and surely civil society participation aids that goal. And we can all agree that lowering the barriers to participation so that full participation is not restricted to those able to find funding from somewhere for travel if needed, requiring fluent English, sometimes requiring understanding of fairly complex communication tools, etc. But if we use 'elite' so broadly that it includes anyone able to find the time to understand the issues and spend time participating, then directly participating in policy processes will always be restricted to an elite, and using the term pejoratively is nonsensical. Regards David M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 14:31:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:31:18 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.a u> Message-ID: <29d101cff602$074a96d0$15dfc470$@gmail.com> However, when it comes to broader issues affecting broader public policy and the broader public interest such as for example–taxation policy and revenue distribution, censorship, and the application and enforcement of human rights–means need to be found to ensure the broadest possible inclusion in the mechanisms of governance if only on the basis of classical democratic principles. As well and perhaps of most importance as the Internet becomes the basis for more and more aspects of public life and civic engagement, the denial of principles of universal suffrage with respect to Internet governance is a denial of democracy itself. So let’s drop the terminology and conceptual apparatus of “Internet users” at least in the context of Internet policy and Internet governance. Rather let’s think about everyone as actual or potential “users’ of the Internet and everyone as being impacted either directly or indirectly by the Internet. Thus we are all “stakeholders” in Internet governance and we all should have the right to participate in the decisions which will impact on the future management and governance of the Internet — our common heritage and destiny. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/q-who-are-internet-users-a-everyone/ M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:23 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:19 am, michael gurstein wrote: As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”. In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again? You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)? Regards David Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [ mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): http://bestbits.net/lf/ So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations. with the following definitions of some included terms 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. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. Stakeholder: A term borrowed from Project Management. ” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “ and the derivative: Multistakeholder process: A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 15:33:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:33:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> References: ,<297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <2a0701cff60a$a7935430$f6b9fc90$@gmail.com> Erik and all, I’ve always preferred the formulation of “open and inclusive”/”openness and inclusion”… http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/does-inclusion-matter-for-open-government-the-answer-is-very-much-indeed/ M From: JOSEFSSON Erik [mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 11:07 AM To: michael gurstein; 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) The following is a chapter of a draft report on Ensuring utmost transparency -- Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament . The RFC is closing in a week or so, feedback very welcome!. If you want to tweet: https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/523060059098849280 //Erik The Constitutional Principle of Openness under European Law Parliament has Imposed upon Itself a Commitment to Conduct its Activities with the Utmost Transparency Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament provides that "1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." The European Parliament has been a champion in promoting not only openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents, but also that the EU Courts should accept that openness constitutes a general principle of EU law, and that the right to information is as such a fundamental human right. In Netherlands v Council, the European Parliament argued as follows: In this connection, the Parliament avers that, whilst it is competent for the institutions to adopt appropriate measures for their internal organization with a view to ensuring their sound operation and the proper conduct of their procedures, the principle of openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents entailed thereby constitute essential requirements of democracy and therefore cannot be treated as organizational matters purely internal to the institutions. In this context, the Parliament adverts to the democratic nature of the Community legal order. It maintains moreover that the requirement for openness constitutes a general principle common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States which is also enshrined in Community law. Lastly, it argues that the right to information, of which access to documents constitutes the corollary, is a fundamental human right recognized by various international instruments. In its judgment, the Court stressed that the domestic legislation of most Member States enshrines, in a general manner, the public’s right of access to documents held by public authorities as a constitutional or legislative principle. The Court found that this trend "discloses a progressive affirmation of individuals’ right of access to documents held by public authorities" and that accordingly, the Council deemed it necessary to amend the rules governing its internal organisation, which had hitherto been based on the principle of confidentiality. The Court added that, "so long as the Community legislature has not adopted general rules on the right of public access to documents held by the Community institutions, the institutions must take measures as to the processing of such requests by virtue of their power of internal organisation, which authorises them to take appropriate measures in order to ensure their internal operation in conformity with the interests of good administration". While dated, this analysis is still interesting for at least three reasons. First, the legal doctrine is divided as to whether or not it is possible to interpret the Netherlands v Council judgment as authority for the existence of a fundamental right of access to documents.[6] Second, when interpreting Rule 115, the relevant legal question is whether or not internal rules of the institutions may confer a substantive legal right to access to documents, to information, and/or to data on EU citizens. Third, the Court clearly links the issue of public access to documents to the nascent principle of good administration. According to the case law of the Court, the purpose of the Community institutions’ internal Rules of Procedure is to organise the internal functioning of its services in the interests of good administration. The essential purpose of such rules, particularly those with regard to the organisation of deliberations and the adoption of decisions, is to ensure the smooth conduct of the decision-making procedure. It follows that natural or legal persons may normally not rely on an alleged breach of such rules, as they are not intended to ensure protection for individuals. Therefore, internal rules cannot be regarded as measures conferring on European citizens a substantive right of access to documents, to information, or to data held by the EU institutions. They are not intended to vest in European citizens a formal ”right to know” what is going on within the European institutions, which is a prerequisite in a participatory democracy, where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen”. In the absence of general rules on the right of public access to information or to data held by the EU institutions, European citizens’ ”right to know” and to participate ”as closely as possible” in the decision-making process must therefore be found elsewhere. As a preliminary conclusion, Rule 115 does not in itself confer any rights on European citizens. Nevertheless, as compliance with internal Rules of Procedure may constitute an essential procedural requirement, and may in some circumstances have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, their breach can give rise to an action for annulment before the EU Courts. Indeed, procedural rules laid down in Rule 115 constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and its infringement leads to the nullity of the measure thereby vitiated. In the light of the Court's judgment in European Parliament v. Council, that rule is an expression of the democratic principles on which the European Union is founded. In particular, the Court has already stated that the Parliament’s involvement in the decision-making process is the reflection, at the EU level, of the fundamental democratic principle that the people should participate in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly.[7] Not only has Parliament imposed upon itself that it shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, but its actions shall also conform with the Principle of Openness enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter, and the Right of Access to Information in Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Principle of Openness and the Right of Access to Information: A Basis for Imposing Free Software and Open Standards ? The first real step towards allowing the public a right of access to documents held by the Community institutions dates back to 7 February 1992 when the Member States signed the Final Act to the Maastricht Treaty.[8] . In Declaration No. 17 to that Act, the Member States pointed to the close connection between the transparency of the decision-making process and the democratic nature of the Community institutions. Nowadays, the principle of openness in European Union law has solid roots, as the very text of the Rule 115 makes clear, in the fundamental Treaties of the European Union. The Treaties Article 1(2) and Article 10(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU) states that in the European Union decisions are to be taken as "openly as possible" and as closely as possible to the citizen. In this respect, Article 15(1) TFEU states that in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible. According to the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing in or having its registered office in a Member State, is to have a right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with that paragraph. Moreover, according to the second subparagraph of Article 15(3), the general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents are to be determined by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. In accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, each institution, body, office or agency is to ensure that its proceedings are transparent and is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU. It should be noted at the outset that the General Court has held that Article 1, para. 2 EU and Article 255 EC did not have direct effect, and could therefore not form the basis of a request for disclosure of a document of an institution. The first provision was not regarded as "clear"[9] , and the second was not considered to lay down an unconditional obligation, since its implementation was held to be dependent on the adoption of subsequent measures. [10] In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11] , and to the "principle of transparency" [12] , in support of a finding that the previous internal rules of access to documents of the institutions must be interpreted in the light of the "principle of the right to information" and the principle of proportionality. The issue has obviously divided the General Court, which has also stated: For the purpose of applying Article 4 of Regulation EC No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the concept of a document must be distinguished from that of information. The public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions covers only documents and not information in the wider meaning of the word and does not imply a duty on the part of the institutions to reply to any request for information from an individual.[13] To date, no clear guidance on this issue has been provided by the Court. In Council v Hautala, the Court did not find it necessary to rule on "the existence of a principle of the right to information" in European Union law.[14] Based on this lack of clarity in the case-law of the EU Courts, in Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB, the ECB contested the very existence in EU law of a fundamental legal principle which provides for a general right of access to its documents and to those of the EU institutions. It argued that although arguments based on such a principle have been raised on numerous occasions before the EU judicature, none of the EU Courts has considered it appropriate to examine them. In its judgement, the General Court held that "even supposing that the right of access to the documents held by the Community public authorities, including the ECB, may be regarded as a fundamental right protected by the Community legal order as a general principle of law", the plea of illegality in respect of Article 23.3 of the ECB Rules of Procedure, based on the alleged infringement of such a principle, could not be upheld. The General Court pointed out that fundamental rights cannot be understood as ‘unfettered prerogatives’ and that it is ‘legitimate that these rights should, if necessary, be subject to certain limits justified by the overall objectives pursued by the Community, on condition that the substance of these rights is left untouched" [15] . The General Court held that, as regards the right of access to documents, reasons related to the protection of the public interest or a private interest may legitimately restrict that right.[16] Be that as it may. As Advocate General Poiares Maduro has correctly pointed out, the fact remains that henceforth the existence of the right of access to documents of the institutions is no longer based on internal measures adopted by the institutions, with which they are bound to comply, or even on Regulation 1049/2001, but on a provision of constitutional import.[17] The Court has in this regard clarified that the "principle of openness" stated in a general manner in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is "crystallised" by Regulation 1049/2001.[18] An alleged infringement of the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is therefore in the Court's view not distinct from a plea alleging a wrongful application of the exceptions referred to in Regulation No 1049/2001. The existence of a "principle of openness" is confirmed by Art. 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states "In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible." Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Similiarly, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’) also acknowledges this right: ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.’ Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 thereby establish a right of access to documents of the institutions. In the context of the European Parliament documents, it should be noted that Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament[19] provides that documents and electronic records which a Member has received, drafted or sent are not to be treated as Parliament documents unless they have been tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. As Advocate general Kokkot has noted, the documents relating to a legislative procedure which are in the possession of a rapporteur must in principle be regarded as being in the possession of the Parliament. It will at some point in time be necessary to decide whether Article 15 TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow such documents to be excluded from the right of access in the future.[20] Moreover, Art. 10 TEU regarding the principle of democracy (especially Article 10(3), echoes the second paragraph of Article 1) and Article 15 TFEU, dealing with good governance, openness, transparency and access to documents. Article 10 in the European Convention of Human Rights The development of the principle of openness in EU law has been accompanied by a parallell development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In Guerra and Others v. Italy, the Strasbourg Court held that freedom to receive information under Art. 10 of the ECHR merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him. It states that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of that case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion [21] Similiarly, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért concerned a request for access to information by a non-governmental organisation for the purposes of contributing to public debate. Here, the Court noted that it had recently advanced towards a broader interpretation of the notion of the “freedom to receive information” and thereby towards the recognition of a right of access to information.[22] In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[23] , the Court unanimously recalled, in its reasoning on admissibility, that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a "right of access to information". The judgment has, in our view correctly, been interpreted as having "established implicitly the right of access”, in that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a right of access to information.[24] In a concurring opinion, judges Sajó and Vučinić highlighted the general need to interpret Article 10 in conformity with developments in international law regarding freedom of information, which entails access to information held by public bodies referring, in particular, to Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 [25] . The Human Rights Committee has in turn stressed both the proactive and the reactive dimensions of the freedom of expression and freedom of information. Article 19, paragraph 2 embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies. Such information includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source, and the date of production. As the Committee has observed in its General Comment No. 16, regarding Article 17 of the Covenant, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Paragraph 3 of the General Comment provides as follows: 3.Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. Moreover, to give effect to the right of access to information, States Parties should proactively put in the public domain government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective, and practical access to such information. In regard to freedom of expression, the Committee has linked it with the developments in information and communication technologies: 15. States Parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto. The principle of openness and the right of access to information are directed ‒ among other things ‒ at ensuring that decisions are taken as openly as possible and and closely as possible to the citizens, in other words, it is a basic democratic tenet, where citizens must see what happens within the institutions (which is one of the means through which accountability of the institutions and their agents is ensured) and the institutions have an obligation to at least listen to what citizens have to say (in other words, participation and representation of interests). [26] . Legislative Openness Ever since the Treaty of Amsterdam the concept of "the legislative" has had a place in the language of the EU Treaties. Under the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) EC the Council was already required to define "the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity" to allow the right of access to documents under Article 255(1) EC to be exercised. In the realm of secondary legislation, Recital 6 in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 states that "[w]ider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity." The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined both the right of access to documents of the institutions, on the one hand, and referred to the special consideration to be given to the ‘legislative capacity’ of the Council, on the other. It has been argued that , this indicated that the appropriate context for exercising the right of access was where the Council was acting in a "legislative capacity", thus acknowledging the close relationship that, in principle, exists between legislative procedures and the principles of openness and transparency [27] . On a comparative note, and despite the differences that may exist between national legislation and EU "legislation", or between Member State legislatures and the EU "legislature", the "legislative procedure" by which the Council and the European Parliament are bound, is conceptually very close to the national "legislative procedure", speaking from the point of view of its underlying purpose and thus the principles on which it must be based. In the end, they have in common the need to satisfy the imperative requirements of democratic legitimacy. As the Advocate General correctly pointed out in Case C‑280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe [28] : "’Legislating’ is, by definition, a law-making activity that in a democratic society can only occur through the use of a procedure that is public in nature and, in that sense, ‘transparent’. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ascribe to ‘law’ the virtue of being the expression of the will of those that must obey it, which is the very foundation of its legitimacy as an indisputable edict. In a representative democracy, it must be possible for citizens to find out about the legislative procedure, since if this were not so, citizens would be unable to hold their representatives politically accountable, as they must be by virtue of their electoral mandate. In the context of this public procedure, transparency therefore plays a key role that is somewhat different from its role in administrative procedures. While, in administrative procedures, transparency serves the very specific purpose of ensuring that the authorities are subject to the rule of law, in the legislative procedure it serves the purpose of legitimising the law itself and with it the legal order as a whole." In its judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council,[29] the Court held that it is for the Council to balance the particular interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming from increased openness. It states that when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, it is particularly relevant that openness be considered, given that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy, and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. The following Recitals in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 are relevant in this respect: "‘(1) The second subparagraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. (2) Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (6) Wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated powers, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the institutions’ decision-making process. Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent." The Court has confirmed that the considerations of legislative openness are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity: "Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by enabling citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis for a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights".[30] The theoretical underpinnings of the Principle of Openness and of legislative openness has thus acquired a solid foundation in the Treaties and in the case-law of the court. However, due to the eternal tide wave and purported conflict between Openness and Efficiency, Parliament has in practice struggled to live up to the Principle of Openness by resorting to informal decision-making procedures. As Nikoleta Yordanova has correctly noted: [31] Traditionally, the parliamentary committees have offered important venues for political involvement of extra-parliamentary actors due to the openness and transparency of their meetings. In the past fifteen years, however, the EP has been resorting ever more often to informal decision-making, whereby the parliamentary decisions are not reached internally following deliberations and debate in committee and plenary but in secluded trilogue meetings of limited number of representatives of the three EU legislative institutions – the EP, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. (...) The implications of the switch to an informal mode of legislating for representation in the EP are twofold – decreased input and, potentially also, output legitimacy. Specifically, the decrease in committee influence has curtailed the channels of representation of interest groups to affect decision-making, depriving them of an effective tool to monitor and shape the legislative process and outcomes by raising timely demands. A possible implication of this is diminished receptiveness of legislators to constituents’ interests. Moreover, the lack of transparency of the secluded inter-institutional meetings has limited the ability of constituents to monitor their representatives’ policy bargaining, positions and the concessions, and, consequently, to evaluate how responsive legislators are to their preferences and demands. The Need for Lawmakers to Deliberate in Private The European Union, the Member States and 19 other States are parties to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Convention’), which entered into force on 30 October 2001. The Convention is based on three ‘pillars’ – access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Its preamble includes the following recitals: ‘Recognising that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns, Aiming thereby to further the accountability of and transparency in decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment, Recognising the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this Convention in their proceedings’. The second sentence of Article 2(2) allows Member States to exclude from the scope of the Directive bodies otherwise falling within the definition of ‘public authority’, ‘when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity’. The Convention was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, (3) the annex to which contains a declaration by the European Community (‘the Declaration’) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: ‘In relation to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention the European Community invites Parties to the Convention to take note of Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive]. These provisions give Member States of the European Community the possibility, in exceptional cases and under strictly specified conditions, to exclude certain institutions and bodies from the rules on review procedures in relation to decisions on requests for information. Therefore the ratification by the European Community of the Aarhus Convention encompasses any reservation by a Member State of the European Community to the extent that such a reservation is compatible with Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive].’ In ratifying the Convention on 20 May 2005, Sweden lodged a reservation which, in so far as is relevant, reads as follows: ‘Sweden lodges a reservation in relation to Article 9.1 with regard to access to a review procedure before a court of law of decisions taken by the Parliament, the Government and Ministers on issues involving the release of official documents.’ In accordance with Directive 2003/4,[32] public authorities must in principle be required to make environmental information held by or for them available to any applicant at his request. However, the Directive permits Member States to exclude public bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of a ‘public authority’. In addition, access may be refused to certain types of document, or if disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings of authorities where such confidentiality is provided for by law. In her opinion in Flachglas Torgau, AG Sharpstone summarized the dilemma as follows:[33] The performance of both judicial and legislative functions could be impaired if information of all kinds concerning each and every stage of the process – analysing the relevant issues and data, deriving conclusions from that analysis and formulating a final decision – could be demanded of right at all times by any member of the public. It seems reasonable to assume that considerations of that kind were in the minds of those who initially drafted the first of the instruments concerned and have remained, albeit implicitly, in the minds of those who have participated in the drafting of the subsequent instruments. Yet it is by no means desirable, nor would it appear consistent with the overall thrust of the Convention or the Directive, for legislative or judicial activity to take place in impenetrable secrecy. It is generally considered necessary, in order to ensure the rule of law and democratic government, for both courts of law and legislative assemblies to operate in the presence of the public (or at least of the media as an intermediary) other than in wholly exceptional circumstances – and it is, moreover, generally accepted that such circumstances are more common in the course of judicial than of legislative activity. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, therefore, in neither case should decisions be taken on the basis of facts, or for reasons, which are concealed from citizens. _____ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 1 November 2014 18:42 To: 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I’ll add only a few points 1. “Openness”—I’ve discussed “openness” and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I’m delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/ The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations—justice, freedom, democracy—rather it is “openness” as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by “openness” is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique). Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention—a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician’s rationalizations and resistances to being “open”—i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape. If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical – less than true believing – its not because I don’t believe in this goal of “openness” (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed—closed systems, closed doors, closed minds—you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered. White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction 2. Transparency Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of “transparency and MSism”, it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included. As I’m sure you know the notion of “transparency” is generally yoked with the notion of “accountability”. This isn’t simply for catch phrase purposes. “Transparency and accountability” are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other. To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability. The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how “transparency” as you present it is actually linked to any structures of “accountability” is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting. It is great if MS process are fully transparent. But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. Democracy, at least according to any document I’ve ever seen, is fundamentally about “accountability”—accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests—ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. “Transparency” is one of the necessary tools for achieving this “accountability”… a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight. Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a “principle” on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle. 3. Consensus My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of “consensus” as a governance principle. As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers). Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course “consensus”) I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good. Unfortunately your “consensus principle” is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. The TL:DR summary - Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. And my impression is that the JNC position: - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 15:29:33 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:29:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> Message-ID: <21589.13469.249142.937652@world.std.com> On October 31, 2014 at 23:30 drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote: > Barry, > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > So to go back to the original point (not by you, what I was responding > > to): Stating that IP address allocation authority should not be > > "Westphalian" seems, I'll use the word again, disingenuous. > > In no way can IP address allocation be considered Westphalian, at least as I understand the term. The critical word was "authority", address allocation authority. I was just referring to the fact that the RIRs are defined as representing a set of nation states. I'm not sure where the dispute in that is, they define themselves on their web pages like this (earlier referenced.) With a few pragmatic exceptions (e.g., territories.) > In my view, IP address allocation authority derives from the acceptance of the network operational community to accept the authority of the registry system. Of course. All governance ultimately derives from the consent of the people etc. > > If you disagree, what do you think would happen if (say) the government of West Elbonia decided to "redistribute" 192.74.137.0/24 to themselves. My experience has been that ISPs care a bit more about contracts and getting paid than what some far off nation in which they have no customers might decide on any given day. They would have to get others to route it or else it would make little difference to me. At which point my complaint would be with those who agreed to route the address beyond Elbonia. But you can set up a NAT, for example, and use any address block on the inside that you like. Many use 10.0.0.0/24, the old ARPAnet block. No users are injured in the process. They could use my blocks and I doubt I would notice unless something was broken. I did once have an ISP of some size maliciously route my block to "punish" me (my company) for my detailing (naming and shaming) their flagrant and profitable support of spamming activities in public, providing resources to spammers. Fortunately a much bigger ISP black-holed their entire operation in response which resulted in a meeting of the minds. I am happy to report that the offending ISP went bankrupt a couple of years later. As Tarzan would say, "it's a jungle out there!" > > Nation-states have the ability to compel entities within their borders to do things they might not otherwise desire to do. In the context of IP address allocation, a nation-state can compel ISPs within that nation-state's borders to ignore the allocations of the registry system, however the impact of that action would mostly be to disconnect the nation-state from the Internet unless ISPs outside of the nation-state agree. This would be ... unlikely as it is a sure path to pure chaos. By and large, nation-states prefer not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, so they haven't (to date) ignored the existing registry system, despite its numerous warts. Sure, we agree. > > Life might get a little more interesting with IPv4 exhaustion, but I hope not. It already has. > > > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > > NCC region. > > I believe the fact that the IEPG/FNC/IAB/RIRs decided to split up the planet on semi-arbitrary geopolitical boundaries was purely a convenience. It was not related to allocation authority. De facto and de jure have a way of converging after a while. > > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 15:49:46 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:49:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <21589.14682.48398.981651@world.std.com> My questions about multistakeholderism are: 1. How does one become a member of a stakeholder coalition? Is it purely self-defined for each individual member beyond perhaps where they represent a collection of groups each with membership requirements? If I say I am a plumber and a member of the plumber stakeholder group do you just take me at my word (i.e., and let me vote or submit position papers)? 2. Can one be a member of more than one stakeholder group? I'd think one almost has to be. For example, I am an ISP so let's say a member of the ISP stakeholder group. But also an internet user, domain name holder, and occasionally hold up gas stations for extra cash so if they ever coalesce into a stakeholder group then them also though granted the internet interest in that activity is low. 3. Does #2 cause any structural problems? How many "votes" do I get? 4. What is the process for coordination among stakeholder groups? I think #4 is the big one, or maybe I'm missing something. I mostly understand how the United Nations acts as a coordinating organization among nation-states. They sit in a big room sometimes and vote condemnations of whatever nation-state they're displeased with at the moment and each don't have a lot of vested interest in. And of course all those wonderful things like WHO and Unicef and Les Caques Bleu and HRC etc. What would be the analogue for multi-stakeholderism and how would it be structured? Without a reasonably clear vision of that last point I don't know what I am being asked to buy into other than some vague hand-wave to set theory. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:09:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:09:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] Meanwhile, in Argentina In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a3301cff620$7f0c69a0$7d253ce0$@gmail.com> From: oia-bounces at lists.bway.net [mailto:oia-bounces at lists.bway.net] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 6:09 PM To: Bruce Kushnick Subject: [OIA] Meanwhile, in Argentina http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/173442/gov A bill presented by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s administration yesterday may change the country’s telecommunications sector for years to come. The broad measure appeasing long-held demands by the opposition declares information and technology communications a public service and establishes a broad definition of net neutrality, an issue that was discussed last week in a Senate committee. The so-called “Digital Argentina” bill, unveiled yesterday morning by Economy Minister Axel Kicillof, Federal Planning Minister Julio De Vido and Communications Secretary Norberto Berner, implies substantial changes to the 2009 Media Law as it opens the possibility for providers to offer “triple play” (telephone, cable and Internet) services. This reform would put Argentina in a similar situation to most of Europe and the Americas within the framework of technological convergence, even though conflicts could be raised in the near future regarding the winners and losers in this new stage of regulation. The aim of the proposed regulation is to “stimulate competition and put an end to concentration” in the telecommunications sector, Kicillof said during a news conference. For his part a private source from the cable and Internet market called the bill “a new stage in the battle against media conglomerate Clarín.” The government, meanwhile, framed the reform as important, declaring that telecommunications could hardly be considered a trivial issue. “We need new regulations in order to be able to access services that are considered human rights,” Kicillof said. TAKES ON EXCLUDED ASPECTS According to the dictates of the bill, the restriction on telephone companies to provide audiovisual services that was part of the 2009 Media Law will collapse. But the anti-monopoly limits set by the Media Law will continue, including the market share of 35 percent, a maximum of 24 districts for cable providers and 10 TV and radio licences as well as geographic incompatibilities. The proposed reform of the 1972 Telecommunications Law takes on part of the initial conception of the Audiovisual Communications Services Law (LDSCA), also known as the Media Law, which gave a green light to convergence with state monitoring in terms of costs and conditions for the telecommunications networks to be at the service of other providers. This goal was removed from the bill during congressional negotiations in order to obtain support from centre-left parties. At the time, lawmakers from the Socialist (PS) party and Project South said that the Media Law sought to favour the telephone companies — a position also defended by the Clarín Group, the country’s largest media conglomerate. The government gave in on this point in order to earn support from from these caucuses — but the law lost in terms of technological innovation and the emergence of competitive players. This discussion is provisionally resolved in Article 9, which clearly states what telecommunications licences “may be able to offer audiovisual services,” a permission that works the other way round since media licences will also be enabled to sell “telecommunication services” to subscribers. Specialists, however, agree that the latter option is less profitable and more complex. PUBLIC SERVICES The measure — which also guarantees the privacy of e-mail, regardless of the channel used — also takes on deregulation aspects first outlined by Decree 764/2000, a regulation passed during the Fernando De la Rúa administration. Should the law be passed, telecommunication networks will be considered “essential public services” and therefore allow the state to set minimum standards and maximum prices, a long-held demand by progressive lawmakers. The government may establish a minimum compulsory speed for all networks, a figure that will be updated every two years aimed at guaranteeing egalitarian access to quality services throughout the country. Another key aspect mentioned by the bill is the declaration of “net neutrality” and free access to information. A week ago, a net neutrality bill was cleared for debate in the Senate. The bill — which could be replaced by this new, broader bill — establishes that companies must ensure equal treatment for all Internet traffic. Yesterday afternoon, UNEN lawmaker Roy Cortina — who has presented in the past a number of bills to declare mobile services a public service — expressed his “serious doubts” about the official reform bill. “It’s a good thing that the national administration finally acknowledged this demand... but the government has been an accomplice of skyrocketing fees and lousy services provided by mobile phone operators,” Cortina said in a news release. Radical lawmaker Hugo Maldonado hailed the news but warned he was not going to “let the government surprise us again.” “Declaring mobile technology a public service means we may turn the page on this essential service,” Maldonado expressed. POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES If the proposal is approved by Congress: - Telefónica may be able to keep leading broadcast TV channel Telefe — a decision that the AFSCA media watchdog had failed to make in the past, despite Telefónica having filed its adjustment plan several months ago. Officials from AFSCA had already acknowledged the presence of the Spanish company in the broadcast market was at odds with the 2009 regulation. - Telecommunication companies may be able to offer paid TV services, with the restrictions set by the Media Law. Namely, Telefónica and Telecom would be allowed to offer cable TV services through its Buenos Aires network — but only as long as the former gets rid of the Telefé broadcast channel. - Mexican businessman David Martínez, the head of the Fintech Advisory fund who has just bought 17 percent of Telecom Argentina, may be able to keep his share in Cablevisión, Clarín’s cable TV company. ENCOURAGING COMPETITION Another central aspect of the government-sponsored reform is that it would declare Internet a public service. On the one hand, this enables the state to determine a final subscription price. On the other, this could allow other companies to use the network of already-established firms such as Fibertel in exchange for a fee, which can also be determined by the national administration. “This could mean hundreds of new providers may appear,” a source from the paid TV and Internet market told the Herald. (This is linked to the deregulation of the last mile, another key aspect of the bill. A telecommunications network is considered to have four segments: backbone, middle mile, last mile and the last 100 feet. Deregulating the last mile would help new or smaller telecom providers use the structure of the largest players.) The same source linked the bill with the ongoing conflict between the government and Clarín. On October 8, the head of the AFSCA media watchdog Martín Sabbatella announced the forced divestment of the Clarín Group on the grounds that the conglomerate was trying to “cheat” his department by presenting a bogus divestment plan. Observers see Clarín taking the issue to courts in coming days. At the same time, Clarín was left out of the country’s 4G bidding process which is expected to go ahead tomorrow. Telefónica’s Movistar, Telecom’s Personal, and firms Claro (headed by Mexican magnate Carlos Slim) and Arlink (part of the Vila-Manzano Group) were all pre-selected to participate in the tender process. “This constitutes a new chapter in the fight against Clarín media group”, the private source pointed out. “A new bill should promote competition with fair rules. The mobile phone market represents 45 billion pesos out of 70 billion pesos for the entire telecommunication market. “On the other hand, Cablevisión (Clarín’s cable-television provider) only has a market share of six percent,” the source added. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:40:47 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:40:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking Message-ID: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:54:31 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:54:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21589.13469.249142.937652@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> <21589.13469.249142.937652@world.std.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > I was just referring to the fact that the RIRs are defined as > representing a set of nation states. I don't think that is a fact in evidence at all. RIRs can "represent" their Members, certainly. In international fora such as the ITU, I think RIRs "represent" their policy communities and their Membership. I don't think they purport to represent anyone else, certainly not nation states One doesn't have to live in a region to participate in the policy making of that regions RIR. Entities can be HQed outside the geo region that makes up a RIR and still get resources from that RIR. So a US CDN can get RIPE resources or a Indian Tier 1 can get resources from the ARIN region, etc. -- 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 compsoftnet at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 20:02:32 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:02:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC assessment of the 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> References: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> Message-ID: Good compilation and well detailed assessment. I think it captures my mind. Cheers!!!! On Oct 29, 2014 9:37 AM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: > > Dear all > > Attached is the APC assessment of the 2014 IGF and recommendations for > 2015. > > Anriette > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 06:50:14 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:50:14 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, The India text has been revised, I can't find it on wcitleaks right now, but the CCG (National Law University Delhi) has done a summary with excerpts: http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/re-drafted-resolution-from-india-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, McTim wrote: > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 2 07:06:00 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 17:36:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1497065a148.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Ah, the eternal struggle between proponents of multistakeholderism and multilateralism among indian agencies persists, I see I am sorry that parminder might not appreciate this revised text though :) 'that a multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, to the extent possible, at all levels to improve the coordination of activities of international and inter-governmental organizations and other institutions involved in telecom/ICT networks based on IP technology;' On November 2, 2014 5:21:29 PM McTim wrote: > All, > > The India text has been revised, I can't find it on wcitleaks right > now, but the CCG > (National Law University Delhi) has done a summary with excerpts: > > http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/re-drafted-resolution-from-india-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary/ > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 08:13:40 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 07:13:40 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking In-Reply-To: <1497065a148.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1497065a148.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: found it, thanks to @sgdickinson http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0011!R8!MSW-E.pdf On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Ah, the eternal struggle between proponents of multistakeholderism and > multilateralism among indian agencies persists, I see > > I am sorry that parminder might not appreciate this revised text though :) > > 'that a multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, to the extent > possible, at all levels to improve the coordination of activities of > international and inter-governmental organizations and other institutions > involved in telecom/ICT networks based on IP technology;' > > > > > On November 2, 2014 5:21:29 PM McTim wrote: > >> All, >> >> The India text has been revised, I can't find it on wcitleaks right >> now, but the CCG >> (National Law University Delhi) has done a summary with excerpts: >> >> >> http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/re-drafted-resolution-from-india-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary/ >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, McTim wrote: >> > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > >> > McTim >> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 08:45:50 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:45:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <149661fabc0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> <149661fabc0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <85F0966F-1E91-446D-B2B1-F1EE04DC1AC0@gmail.com> Hi It’s not China-only. I was told that travel and accommodation within China could be covered but due to budget limits airfare support is only available for selected invitees from developing countries. Best Bill > On Oct 31, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > My guess is a China only event with some invited guests especially companies doing business in China or in some cases, invited technical experts. > On October 31, 2014 5:31:51 PM Chantal Lebrument wrote: > >> For information I and others French people including Louis Pouzin are in Shanghai for 10 days (SmartCities event), and we can not use Gmail normally (only with my iPhone 5!!) nor Facebook, Twitter >> Very difficult to work with one smartphone for 3 or 4 people;=)) >> But, regarding this China event it seems to be a... China event between ICANN and US operators and chinese regulators... >> But we will ask to VIP we will meet... >> >> Chantal >> >> Envoyé de mon iPhone >> >> Le 31 oct. 2014 à 18:54, Mawaki Chango > a écrit : >> >>> Wow, just in less than a month? Is anyone aware of when this was first announced/decided? >>> When I read the headline at first, I thought maybe the new trend that one of the BRICS will be organizing a global IG meeting, say, every year or something. But schedule is too tight and I'm afraid we will soon be having an overdose. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> ===================================== >>> Mawaki Chango, PhD >>> Founder >>> DIGILEXIS >>> http://www.digilexis.com >>> m.chango at digilexis.com | kichango at gmail.com >>> Twitter: @digilexis & @prodigilexis >>> Mob. +225 57 55 57 53 | +225 44 48 77 64 >>> Skype: digilexis >>> ===================================== >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >>> >>> --- Forwarded message --- >>> From: "Dave Farber via ip" > >>> Date: October 31, 2014 3:58:41 PM >>> Subject: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn >>> To: "ip" > >>> >>> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-10/30/c_133754691.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 2 22:36:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:06:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] A view form the US, about the US and the Internet Message-ID: <5456F845.9090703@itforchange.net> "The fact that no country beside the US possesses a pervasive, global spying system proves that the argument that “all countries do it” is specious. From satellites in the late 1950s to the Internet infrastructure today, this unparalleled US global surveillance complex has been continuously modernised. But since the fall of socialism in the early 1990s, it also has been repurposed. Its function is still to combat challengers, and would-be challengers, to a global political economy that is built around US interests." A view from the US /*US wants to control, and own, the world online - We’ve got our eye on you*/ http://mondediplo.com/2014/11/02dsnowden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Nov 3 02:50:03 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:50:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> Message-ID: <545733AB.1080804@digsys.bg> On 01.11.14 19:35, Barry Shein wrote: > > On November 1, 2014 at 04:49 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa > > historically > > I would call that geographic, one can still draw a continuous circle > around it spanning the Mediterranean. It wasn't haphazard certainly. > > Of course one could attribute other motives, that the "circle" mostly > covers the non-black (dominant) population of Europe and N Africa. > > I suppose the real question is what was the question? > The question was: is IP address allocation based on nation-state borders. The short answer is NO. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Nov 3 03:08:18 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:08:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <545737F2.5030407@digsys.bg> On 01.11.14 03:31, David Conrad wrote: >> I was today at a meeting with our government, and they insisted >> that "multistakeholderism", "as they were told by ICANN" means, >> that governments should have more role in managing the Internet. > > I suspect (but am just guessing) that the intended message was that > it would be useful if governments got more involved as a peer with > other stakeholders in efforts related to Internet governance, i.e., > governments are part of the multi-stakeholder model. However as you > note, people will hear what they want to hear. We all want governments involved. If for no other reason, than them wearing too much oppressive power in the society and without knowledge of the real issues and processes, could do much harm, when basing their decisions on what someone's grandmother heard on the queue at the supermarket. >> They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe >> with a liberal regime where the government does not control the >> Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed. > > It might be interesting to understand what they believe 'control > the Internet' means. This is indeed an interesting situation. My theory is this: We have been in "transition" for some 25 years now and all this time, our government people were concerned how much more they could steal (or help their friends/masters steal). This has not left them much time to really concentrate on the Internet. They did listen to their telecom friends (in old times, the telecom was a good source of unaccounted money for the government) --- and this eventually led to some absurd situations/regulations, very related to Internet development, but indirectly. They also listen to their secret services/mafia friends, in attempts to pass some ridiculous "they have such in other countries, we must be able to do it too" type laws on surveillance. It is just amazing how our society has managed to resist that part. They eventually looked into this "internet governance" stuff, including running/managing the various registries, but ultimately came to the idea "there is not enough money in this to bother". But, as they hear "internet governance" talks all around them, at all possible forums, they probably think this is something very important to be involved in. But, as everyone tells them their role is to participate, not rule... they get very confused. In this regard, I am curious whose agenda is it to involve governments in this process -- you can't force processes on parties that are not ready and this is exactly what happens. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Nov 3 03:10:44 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:10:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21589.7172.147989.372149@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21589.7172.147989.372149@world.std.com> Message-ID: <54573884.6050803@digsys.bg> An easy explanation of this arbitrary division is that it's based on convenience. This includes geographical distances, but also cultural and languages spoken reasons. People do group naturally for such reasons. In any case, the thing is, those RIRs and Internet resource allocation are not constituted on political borders. Daniel On 01.11.14 19:44, Barry Shein wrote: > > If one wants to pursue the "geographic region" line of reasoning then > we have to note that Mexico, although located in North America, is a > member of LACNIC. > > All these constructs are messy, though not overly so -- is the problem > ARIN v. LACNIC, or Latin America v. North America? > > But it's still accurate that the five RIRs are defined as a collection > of specific nation-states (a few exceptions, mostly territories etc) > roughly within five geographic loci. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Nov 3 03:21:26 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:21:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> Message-ID: <54573B06.5000309@digsys.bg> On 01.11.14 06:02, Barry Shein wrote: > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > NCC region. My understanding of the way people in Russia think is that they prefer to be considered an entity on their own. If not, they would prefer to be part of Europe. Them being part of the RIPE is for one, and one reason alone: RIPE was the only functioning entity they could interact with. RIPE, being informal group of Europeans were much more tolerant to the Russians and always interfaced with them on practical matters. They always had various issues trying to bypass RIPE, which is what they would naturally do, as their other choice was to deal with the US based Internic and that was difficult at the time. We also need to remember that within a nation-state, there are many different, often antagonizing interests. The development and outcome of the interaction between Russia and RIPE is an interesting topic to study. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 3 04:43:12 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:43:12 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <545737F2.5030407@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427F4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Bulgaria (see below): >> They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe >> with a liberal regime where the government does not control the >> Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed. > > It might be interesting to understand what they believe 'control > the Internet' means. This is indeed an interesting situation. My theory is this: We have been in "transition" for some 25 years now and all this time, our government people were concerned how much more they could steal (or help their friends/masters steal). This has not left them much time to really concentrate on the Internet. They did listen to their telecom friends (in old times, the telecom was a good source of unaccounted money for the government) --- and this eventually led to some absurd situations/regulations, very related to Internet development, but indirectly. They also listen to their secret services/mafia friends, in attempts to pass some ridiculous "they have such in other countries, we must be able to do it too" type laws on surveillance. It is just amazing how our society has managed to resist that part. They eventually looked into this "internet governance" stuff, including running/managing the various registries, but ultimately came to the idea "there is not enough money in this to bother". But, as they hear "internet governance" talks all around them, at all possible forums, they probably think this is something very important to be involved in. But, as everyone tells them their role is to participate, not rule... they get very confused. In this regard, I am curious whose agenda is it to involve governments in this process -- you can't force processes on parties that are not ready and this is exactly what happens. Wolfgang: Bulgaria host the 8th EURODIG, the European Internet Governance Forum, in June 2015. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 05:23:51 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:23:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC References: Message-ID: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on “Enter as Guest” > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Webinar Invitation on the Launch of the NETmundial Initiative.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 99306 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 caribe at entropia.blog.br Mon Nov 3 12:03:34 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:03:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Zero-Rating... Message-ID: <60D287AD-CCD5-46FB-91C7-491AE59F3590@entropia.blog.br> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141103_zero_rating_and_the_creation_of_digital_castes/ -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Mon Nov 3 12:50:09 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:50:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <545733AB.1080804@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> <545733AB.1080804@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21591.49233.63629.495648@world.std.com> No, the question was whether RIR's purviews are defined as serving a set of nation-states. The answer to that question is, with some pragmatic exceptions, yes. On November 3, 2014 at 09:50 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > > > On 01.11.14 19:35, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > On November 1, 2014 at 04:49 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > > > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa > > > historically > > > > I would call that geographic, one can still draw a continuous circle > > around it spanning the Mediterranean. It wasn't haphazard certainly. > > > > Of course one could attribute other motives, that the "circle" mostly > > covers the non-black (dominant) population of Europe and N Africa. > > > > I suppose the real question is what was the question? > > > > The question was: is IP address allocation based on nation-state borders. > > The short answer is NO. > > Daniel -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Mon Nov 3 13:09:20 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 13:09:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <54573B06.5000309@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> <54573B06.5000309@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21591.50384.308292.913827@world.std.com> Yes but the point is that the Russian Federation didn't split between RIPE and APNIC because, for example, a large part of their sovereign territory is in the continent of Europe and another in Asia. In theory they perhaps could have argued for that and "double-dipped". It may have been to their advantage, a bigger pool. But the make-up of the RIRs was (with some pragmatic exceptions) sets of nation-states. The RIRs list these countries quite clearly, there's no reading between the lines involved: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rirs/countries.html And head that with: This comprehensive list of countries is provided as a reference tool to identify the region in which any particular country or economy is located. I believe "or economy" is just saying what I say when I point out that there are some pragmatic exceptions (e.g., island territories.) THE original point I was addressing was that someone said allocating IP addresses along "Westphalian" lines was (choose a word, inappropriate? unprecedented?) I don't think that's a good characterization. On November 3, 2014 at 10:21 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > > > On 01.11.14 06:02, Barry Shein wrote: > > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > > NCC region. > > My understanding of the way people in Russia think is that they prefer > to be considered an entity on their own. If not, they would prefer to be > part of Europe. > > Them being part of the RIPE is for one, and one reason alone: RIPE was > the only functioning entity they could interact with. RIPE, being > informal group of Europeans were much more tolerant to the Russians and > always interfaced with them on practical matters. They always had > various issues trying to bypass RIPE, which is what they would naturally > do, as their other choice was to deal with the US based Internic and > that was difficult at the time. We also need to remember that within a > nation-state, there are many different, often antagonizing interests. > > The development and outcome of the interaction between Russia and RIPE > is an interesting topic to study. > > Daniel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 13:24:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:24:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [1st-mile-nm] Doc. Film: Death by Design In-Reply-To: <225953C3-2808-49E1-B0EB-11262BF713BC@1st-mile.org> References: <225953C3-2808-49E1-B0EB-11262BF713BC@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <312b01cff793$66c937f0$345ba7d0$@gmail.com> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lowenberg Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:50 AM To: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Doc. Film: Death by Design An ongoing and growing issue in our complex, globally linked techno-ecosystem. RL MacArthur Foundation supports documentary films, including Death by Design, by Sue Williams and colleagues. Examining the global environmental and public health consequences of our addiction to our digital devices. Death by Design explores how the manufacturing and disposal of digital devices have deadly environmental and social costs. From China, where most devices are made today, to the mountains of California, the hills of New York State, and the high tech corridors of Silicon Valley - the epicenters of tech manufacturing in the 1980s and '90s - the film tells underreported stories of environmental degradation and of serious illnesses linked to an industry that relies on the theory and practice of planned obsolescence. What emerges is a look at the interconnectedness of the global manufacturing economy. http://www.macfound.org/documentaryfilm/401/ --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute www.1st-mile.org P. O. Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504 505-603-5200 rl at 1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 3 14:12:07 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:12:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> So it’s back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on “Enter as Guest” o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on “Enter as Guest” > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 19:04:48 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:04:48 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about the nature of the participation/representation of another group what measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms? Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”? How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable? Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held accountable. M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 3 19:15:54 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:45:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <14978285ec0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> To whom is anybody at all in this caucus accountable for say wrecking attempts to achieve consensus? And after you fasten accountability what would you then do to whoever is held accountable for whatever? That the caucus itself works at all is because of the same forces that make a multistakeholder approach work On November 4, 2014 5:35:37 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. > > > > To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to > whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for > accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one > group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about > the nature of the participation/representation of another group what > measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms? > > > > Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”? > > > > How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to > would the entire process be accountable? > > > > Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer > each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still > waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held > accountable. > > > > M > > > > From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts > participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a > working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected > representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to > class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early > in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion > that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its > intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES > extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory > Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or > broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this > by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > > ​ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 23:51:16 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:21:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] On India at ITU PP 2014. Message-ID: Dear All, The Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi is working on a project that looks at India's engagement with global internet governance fora. As a part of this, my colleague Arun Mohan Sukumar has been following the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014. Anyone looking for information on India's inputs at the PP is welcome to follow Arun's posts on our blog: - Indian statement on ITU and Internet at the Working Group Plenary - Re-drafted resolution from India at the ITU Plenipotentiary - On the international politics of ITU negotiations For background, my colleague Ujwala has written on India and the Internet at PP-!4 . We welcome your feedback and inputs. Best wishes, Chinmayi Chinmayi Arun | Research Director Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 971-770-2630 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @chinmayiarun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 03:38:27 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:38:27 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on "Enter as Guest" o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on "Enter as Guest" > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 05:32:33 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:32:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Hi > On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) Just to make sure we’re clear: per the August FAQ, NMI is NOT a continuation of Sao Paulo in the sense of global norm-setting. It does not take over any policymaking activity previously done elsewhere. It is a platform upon which people can build projects. The four initial projects were announced in August and are underway, driven by academics (2), CGI.br (1) and ICANN (1). The idea is that over time other groupings including CS could propose stuff on the platform, maybe find partners and other connections, and make stuff happen. As noted previously, WEF could use CS help in figuring out how to build and operate a platform that is open to all to use in this manner. Otherwise I assume CGI.br will be the main configurative force. There have been recalibrations based on feedback, in particular from CS. The former Steering Committee will now be a Coordinating Committee and its membership will likely be selected on a bottom-up basis by different stakeholder groups, as CS participants argued for in August. Given our experience with 1NET, it’s a fair guess this could mean it will take some time to put that group in place. > with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). Yes > ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). The three orgs are each devoting a small piece of staff support. One of the four projects’ is ICANN’s, and it’s the least clear at this point. > But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. And to Ian’s point, there is supposed to be a lot of press on the webinar so someone may raise the point, but if they don't you could of course ask Virgilio to explain the intra-CGI.br process here. They wanted to keep the name. Best Bill > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter > Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 > An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? > > Ian Peter > > From: William Drake > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM > To: Best Bits ; Governance > Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > From: NETmundial Secretariat > > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > > The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > > o Click on "Enter as Guest" > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > 0 800 100 8542 > > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 4 07:41:58 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:41:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: I did, a little after the event, rip the WEF NMI webcast over to youtube for easy reference W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Initial Scoping Meeting W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Press Conference W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Debrief with Founding Partners -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Nov 4 08:47:59 2014 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:47:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship Message-ID: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the possible connections between human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, intended to be a reference. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 11:21:25 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:21:25 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx. Stephane, this is useful and helpful. BTW, is there any discussion with rgard to the drafts on the number of root servers for the authoritative root? This was a (non-paper?) by Paul Vixie and two Chinese partners. What I have seen is that this was more or less watered down or rejected. Any news here? Thanks Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer Gesendet: Di 04.11.2014 14:47 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the possible connections between human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, intended to be a reference. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 12:43:00 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 18:43:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 16:19:35 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:19:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, Sorry I didn't get to say hello to you in L.A.! This is what was posted on DNS-OPS list last week: "Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root Service Architecture. > Location: Hong Kong, HK > Date: December 8-9, 2014 > Hosted by: ISOC-HK > Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC > Co-chairs: Warren Kumari and Paul Vixie This two day workshop will focus on the DNS root service architecture issues raised by two current Internet Drafts: 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-root-loopback-00 Decreasing Access Time to Root Servers by Running One on Loopback W. Kumari, Ed.; P. Hoffman 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00 How to scale the DNS root system? Xiaodong Lee; Paul Vixie; Zhiwei Yan These two drafts take very different approaches to the problem of increasing root zone availability to recursive name servers. In this workshop we will explore the differences and similarities, with an eye towards revising both drafts and clarifying their roles in the DNS root service architecture. Invitations including travel support will be extended to root name server operators (bcc'd here), and to the I-D authors. The workshop will be open to any interested party, and presentations will be streamed live and stored via Youtube. There will be no cost for attending the workshop. Pre-registration will be required. Information on how to register and on the proposed agenda will be sent shortly to this same distribution. For travel planning purposes, the meeting will run all day on December 8, with a social event that evening, and for half a day on December 9, finishing immediately after lunchtime." On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Thx. Stephane, this is useful and helpful. > > BTW, is there any discussion with rgard to the drafts on the number of root servers for the authoritative root? This was a (non-paper?) by Paul Vixie and two Chinese partners. What I have seen is that this was more or less watered down or rejected. Any news here? > > Thanks > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer > Gesendet: Di 04.11.2014 14:47 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship > > Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these > two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal > > Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when > creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or > working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar > considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of > expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for > initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the > possible connections between > human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be > to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol > considerations. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech > > This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship > regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It > aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols > aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor > end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions > on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, > intended to be a reference. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 4 20:28:05 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 06:58:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5F8D1B73-D657-4D07-AC03-F65C131C4D5E@hserus.net> Deity has generally been in favor of multistakeholderism. Other branches of the government (such as the home ministry - the indian equivalent of the state dept, and the foreign ministry), appear to have a broad predeliction to issuing diktats in favor of multilateralism, hence the apparent dichotomy between indian submissions from time to time. --srs (iPad) > On 04-Nov-2014, at 23:13, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > FYI > > http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 19:08:52 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:08:52 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Bill and Wolfgang for the clarifications. I am not sure that I will be able to handle a webinar at 2am AEDT, but perhaps those listening in could get clarity on this, ie Virgilio could be asked to comment on ongoing use of Netmundial name and any involvement with cgi.br as regards this. It would also be good to raise again in this context the issue of civil society (and other stakeholders for that matter) determining their own representation on the Co-ordinating Committee, and getting some indication of possible timeframes and procedures for this. One thing that has advanced since the last time involvement with WEF was raised as a possibility is a broadly agreed on procedure as regards civil society participation if CSCG is to be involved, ie “CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance). Where coalition members choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary responsibility of each constituency.” The coalition members for this purpose would be IGC, Best Bits, Just Net, Diplo, NCSG, and APC. I suspect, as regards any timeframes, it would be quite quick to select representatives once coalitions had determined whether to be involved or not, but the decision as to whether to be involved by each group could take some time; particularly if there is not clarity as regards structures, processes etc. So a lot of clarity would be very useful! I will try to make the webinar, but I do suggest others should seek as much clarity as possible on these structural and procedural issues. Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:32 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: Governance ; Ian Peter ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Hi On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) Just to make sure we’re clear: per the August FAQ, NMI is NOT a continuation of Sao Paulo in the sense of global norm-setting. It does not take over any policymaking activity previously done elsewhere. It is a platform upon which people can build projects. The four initial projects were announced in August and are underway, driven by academics (2), CGI.br (1) and ICANN (1). The idea is that over time other groupings including CS could propose stuff on the platform, maybe find partners and other connections, and make stuff happen. As noted previously, WEF could use CS help in figuring out how to build and operate a platform that is open to all to use in this manner. Otherwise I assume CGI.br will be the main configurative force. There have been recalibrations based on feedback, in particular from CS. The former Steering Committee will now be a Coordinating Committee and its membership will likely be selected on a bottom-up basis by different stakeholder groups, as CS participants argued for in August. Given our experience with 1NET, it’s a fair guess this could mean it will take some time to put that group in place. with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). Yes ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). The three orgs are each devoting a small piece of staff support. One of the four projects’ is ICANN’s, and it’s the least clear at this point. But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. And to Ian’s point, there is supposed to be a lot of press on the webinar so someone may raise the point, but if they don't you could of course ask Virgilio to explain the intra-CGI.br process here. They wanted to keep the name. Best Bill -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on "Enter as Guest" o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 4 21:54:53 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:24:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > FYI > > http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece Hi Wolfgang Very interesting move, largely in keeping with how things have been in India I would say. But I do hope that with all these different pieces being moved India would soon be able to form a good and relatively complete picture of how how it sees IG, both at the global level and at Indian level. Right now there are just too many ambiguities about what part of IG is being spoken of, and how is it proposed t be dealt with. You would of course have noted how muddled and inaccurate the following part of the press report is .. "Globally, there is a debate on who should control the working of the Internet. At present, a US-based body called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN, governs the broad functioning of the Internet." Now if indeed the referred note is speaking about critical Internet resources management work, India and (indeed 90 percent of world's countries) have always supported ICANN and its family of insitutions to keep doing it. (In fact, on a somewhat different count, Just Net Coalition has asked for this system to be recognised and incorporated in international law and agreement, something which the latest India's position of IANA transition also asks for such an reconsigning internal law) ... I will request you and others, lets stop talking whether MS or ML (multistakeholder or multilateral), but speak about what precise institutional system and how it works, or is supposed to work. Lets work on clear details and not slogans. I have asked you a thousand times but you would not respond - do you think that the CoE Council on Internet issues (it is called media something, and with which you have worked) - which takes expert inputs (like it did of your experts committee) and holds stakeholder consultations and then adopts what it thinks fit to adopt in the council which is inter-gov - as a multistakeholder system or not. If not, two questions (1) have you told them so much when you were appointed an expert and in your other numerous interactions with them and (2) what is your proposal as to how the CoE council on Internet issues should work. (I am giving this example only so that we can talk about exact and precise issues and institutional systems as well as possible alternatives.) Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be done by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. However *determining" public policy issues is a different matter, and it should involve deep stakeholder consultations but needs decision making by people's representatives alone... This is my view, and if yours is different lets hear about it. But on a precise and clear level, and not theoretical abstract stuff... parminder > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 5 01:19:42 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 00:19:42 -0600 Subject: [governance] Call for Contributions: Combating counterfeit devices at the ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141105061942.GA19361@hserus.net> While I know that fake / substandard electronic and other components is a huge problem, potentially causing loss of life - such as where it gets used in military (and potentially also civilian) aircraft, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18155293 The fake component as a security risk also needs to draw a distinction between those, and knockoff electronic products that may bear a cosmetic resemblance to a more popular / more expensive one (which the IP lobby would doubtless be interested in, but I am not at all sure whether civil society should care to intervene on that aspect of things) There is already a lot of industry attention to supply chain integrity that plays into this effort, and it is one of those rare cases where there is consensus worldwide on the need for such integrity. Nobody from any country wants fakes to turn up in aircraft, critical infrastructure etc that they manufacture or are responsible for. What, additionally can civil society contribute to this? Maybe the other part about treating employees of suppliers in LDC economies more humanely than they are, but that's not quite germane to this topic (or maybe it is, underpaid and exploited employees are very likely to turn to corruption, or sabotage or both as a motive to introduce fake components into gear that they manufacture). I'd welcome the list's thoughts. --srs Anja Kovacs [05/11/14 11:33 +0530]: >Dear all, > >During the ITU Plenipot, a small group of us had a meeting with Mr. Zhao, >Secretary-General elect of the ITU, to share with him the ways in which >civil society has already contributed to the work of the ITU and how we >hope to build on this in the future. > >During this conversation, we mentioned as one example of civil society's >contribution to the Plenipot the work some of us have been involved in >regarding counterfeit devices and the importance of considering user rights >in battling such devices. In response, the ITU flagged this *call for >contributions to an ITU event on Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT >Devices*, which will take place later this month in Geneva. > >http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx > >Though the last date for contributions has strictly speaking gone, the ITU >has been glad to extent it until 10 November, in the hope that at least >some from civil society would then still be able to make an input. > >It would be great if some here could indeed do so! > >Thanks and all the best, >Anja > > > >-- >Dr. Anja Kovacs >The Internet Democracy Project > >+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >www.internetdemocracy.in >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 5 03:39:16 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:39:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Republican Congress Message-ID: I would be incidently interested in comments on the impact of a fully Republican Congress on the NTIA/executive+international to FCC/legislative+domestic switch. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 06:37:33 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 05:37:33 -0600 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> FYI >> >> >> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece > > > Hi Wolfgang > > Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be done > by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be > administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. India didn't believe that when they put their original proposal forward at PP14! It called for a major re-engineering in day to day operations of internetworking. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 5 09:02:17 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:32:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <545A2DE9.8050306@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2014 05:07 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> FYI >>> >>> >>> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece >> >> Hi Wolfgang >> > > > >> Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be done >> by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be >> administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. > India didn't believe that when they put their original proposal forward at PP14! India asked for laying public policy principles for management of addressing resource in collaboration with other concerned stakeholders and organisations. It did not comment on who should undertake 'technical and day to day administration'. My views on the proposal were sent to this list a while ago... I do not agree with all the proposed directions in which principles were sought to be developed. > > It called for a major re-engineering in day to day operations of > internetworking. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 09:53:23 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:53:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2029954545.19386.1415199203324.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c15> Dear Michael   I agree with your statement on the prevanece of  accountability and public interest.    For the sake of completion to your suggestion and, about and beyond, to the current debate upon the relevance of MSH, please see the document hereafter :   http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/11/opinion-global-governance-we-need-to-bring-civil-society-to-the-table/ A very interesting and useful reading since its thematic, namely global governance (of which IG is (only) a subset), originates from far before the WSIS ... and (for that reason?) doesn't mention the MSH. Phew ... One interesting path for CSOs involved in IG would be to join forces and establish/take profit of synergies with FIM - Forum for Democratic Global Governance that deals with participatory democracy at the highest (multilateral) level. In other words, enshrine Internet Governance in a wider thematic/framework, namely Global Governance (GG), or -at least- deal with IG in full consistence with GG. This would enrich our debate and balance multistakeholdership's role, as well as it would help us to give it an appropriate place in our approach and process.   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 04/11/14 01:05 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'Sivasubramanian M'" > Copie à : "'Jeremy Malcolm'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, forum at justnetcoalition.org > Objet : RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”.   To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to whomever has paid for their participation?  Are their formal procedures for accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about the nature of the participation/representation of another group what measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms?   Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”?   How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable?   Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held accountable.   M   From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations   It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders are not representative enough.    The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation.    Sivasubramanian M     On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”     ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 5 11:06:56 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:06:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Ianaplan] A Libre IUser community Draft Message-ID: Dear all, In order to permit a normal work of the IETF/WG/IANAPLAN that has committed to consider proposals from other communities, and due to the I_D sumission cut-off period we had not anticipated, we have formally created a small Libre IUWG at http://iuwg.net to publish and complete the draft we had prepared as a contribution from an RFC 6852 small global community/NTIA stakeholder. This unplaned WG will formalize in the coming days/weeks. To please Jay Daley: we are Libre members of the Montpellier area where we hold the RMLL in july, members of few friendly specialized lists of mine, a Libre development lab in the cyberagora field, the founders of a small communities/villages oriented Libre non-profit Digital Services Provider under incroporation, etc.. So, it is likely that our IP addresses will sometimes be in the same geographical area, and probably from our own AS (planned for Jannuary 2015). :-) No to slow down the clear compromise process we propose we have only updated a few words in our draft 0.0, (prepared for an IETF/WG) in order to address the issue in the perspective that a separate WG or SDO shares with the IETF, IRT our own names, numbers and parameters referent registries for our users. You will find the draft at the http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.00.pdf We understand that the WG/IANAPLAN will consider in a meeting on Nov 10 if they want to amalgamate (some of) our positions within a WG/IANAPLAN revised draft or if we will have to advance our positions separately. We will therefore not discuss them outsie of the WG/IANAPLAN until their decision, but we can provide additional inputs. Please note that our focus is not on the political aspects of the US Governance of the Internet (NTIA vs FCC) but on our best interests in the global ITU, IG, Russia/China, Libre/Oligarchic, regalian/business/civil, etc multi-macro/micro-stakeholder context, and mostly on the various MYCANN plug-ins developments being considered or under way. Best jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 11:10:05 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:10:05 -0600 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <545A2DE9.8050306@itforchange.net> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> <545A2DE9.8050306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: People can judge for themselves: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf See 4, 5 and 6 for how "day-today aoprations" would have been changed. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:02 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 November 2014 05:07 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece >>> >>> >>> Hi Wolfgang >>> >> >> >> >>> Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be >>> done >>> by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be >>> administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. >> >> India didn't believe that when they put their original proposal forward at >> PP14! > > > India asked for laying public policy principles for management of addressing > resource in collaboration with other concerned stakeholders and > organisations. It did not comment on who should undertake 'technical and day > to day administration'. My views on the proposal were sent to this list a > while ago... I do not agree with all the proposed directions in which > principles were sought to be developed. > > > >> >> It called for a major re-engineering in day to day operations of >> internetworking. >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 5 21:46:39 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:16:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Request to mailing list Forum rejected In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14982ff0f10.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Dear JNC members, It might be a bright idea to stop copying your mailing list on email sent to the caucus if you have and enforce such a rule as this one below. --- Forwarded message --- From: forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org Date: November 6, 2014 8:08:20 AM Subject: Request to mailing list Forum rejected To: suresh at hserus.net Your request to the Forum mailing list Posting of your message titled "RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: forum-owner at justnetcoalition.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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 6 06:06:44 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:06:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Request to mailing list Forum rejected In-Reply-To: <14982ff0f10.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14982ff0f10.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20141106120644.0a7800b3@quill> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:16:39 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Dear JNC members, It might be a bright idea to stop copying your > mailing list on email sent to the caucus if you have and enforce such > a rule as this one below. Actually the message "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list" is a default message in the Mailman mailing list software and it is not totally accurate for the “forum” mailing list hosted by JNC. I'll make sure that it gets changed. It is true that discussions on the forum mailing list are supposed to be among subscribers of that mailing list, and that it is therefore generally not to be recommended to crosspost discussion postings to the “forum” and in addition one or more other mailing lists. However: Everyone (including non-subscribers) is still welcome to use the forum list address to bring matters to the attention of JNC which they think will be of interest. Such announcement type postings which are of interest to JNC are welcome and will be approved even if they are from a non-subscriber and even if they are cross-posted to many lists. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > --- Forwarded message --- > From: forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org > Date: November 6, 2014 8:08:20 AM > Subject: Request to mailing list Forum rejected > To: suresh at hserus.net > > Your request to the Forum mailing list > > Posting of your message titled "RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: > [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot > joint recommendations" > > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the > following reason for rejecting your request: > > "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." > > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator > at: > > forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 6 12:02:22 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:02:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] NetMundial References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Ian, it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 12:06:54 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:06:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Self-appointed: a perfect example Thanks WK Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > Hi Ian, > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > 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 caribe at entropia.blog.br Thu Nov 6 12:18:40 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:18:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well represented. I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think about some names: Joana Varon (Brazil) or Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) []s Joao Carlos Caribe Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > Hi Ian, > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 13:10:09 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 19:10:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) As the French saying goes on: "jamais mieux servi que par soi-même". Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have a legitimate doubt. JC Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : > Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well represented. > > I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think about some names: > > Joana Varon (Brazil) or > Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > > Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. >> >> >> BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. >> >> 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 > > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Nov 6 13:23:31 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:23:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference Message-ID: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 6 14:16:57 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:16:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642832@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI https://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2014/62.aspx 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 6 14:21:37 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:21:37 +1100 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 15:09:23 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:09:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: Jeremy suggests " (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.)" but since the nomination process begins from the individual that may not be possible. CSCG may make a selection, but still not everyone in civil society subscribes to the idea of CSCG. And the Netmundial Initiative isn't clear about the process to demonstrate that one "belongs" to a particular group. And what happens if CSCG decides not to be involved? At a time when civil society needs to search within itself for the areas in which it can present a united front to defend itself and its rights, it seems instead to be being split apart and fragmented, and becoming more and more helpless. Or perhaps I'm just being pessimistic today :-( Deirdre On 6 November 2014 15:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a > week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting > names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have > discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that > would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a > few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and > the call for nominations is outlined at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all > people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a > good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, > and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this > list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask > questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from > these people and others. > > For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with > orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the > intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial > structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society > are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would > welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a > way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only > way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had > drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the > Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) > and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in > crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. > The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on > developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to > de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate > but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a > permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and > contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be > changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the > NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's > work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in > stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on > evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent > seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, > except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be > distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the > technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and > intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across > all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew > skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did > invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, > ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide > between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's > point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do > so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in > order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a > week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a > nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “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 pouzin at well.com Thu Nov 6 19:26:20 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 01:26:20 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , João Carlos Rebello Caribé , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, William Drake , Best Bits < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Wolfgang is a talented colleague who can smell when the wind is shifting. He should rather promote his candidacy within the ICANN nebula, where he has been a well known activist for so long. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this > auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) > > As the French saying goes on: "*jamais mieux servi que par soi-même*". > Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual > suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have > a legitimate doubt. > > JC > > > Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : > > Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well > represented. > > I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think > about some names: > > Joana Varon (Brazil) or > Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > > Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > > Hi Ian, > > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to > the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the > CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms > of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this > was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should > come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS > group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > > 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 > > > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 6 20:18:58 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:18:58 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial Message-ID: Full support Hurrah for Wolfgang! for ***both*** nebulas in order to watch the collusions (at the end of the day this should form a single "global network solution". Please look at http://gsnetworks.org/ : the very lengthy documented comment on the NTIA annoucement published by Lynn St-Amour the very same day was a book co-authored with their Boss (Don Tapscott). Gsnetwork is sponsored by Google, State Department, Royal Bank of Canada, HP, Qualcomm, etc. etc. IMHP JCN should investigate on these good samaritans of ISOC. jfc ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin <pouzin at enst.fr> Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, João Carlos Rebello Caribé <caribe at entropia.blog.br>, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Wolfgang is a talented colleague who can smell when the wind is shifting. He should rather promote his candidacy within the ICANN nebula, where he has been a well known activist for so long. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) As the French saying goes on: "jamais mieux servi que par soi-même". Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have a legitimate doubt. JC Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : >Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and >Europe will be well represented. >I don't know if someone from LAC presented their >candidature, but I think about some names: >Joana Varon (Brazil) or >Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) >[]s >Joao Carlos Caribe >Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > >>Hi Ian, >>it was good to raise some question in today´s >>webinar, in particular to the >>election/selection process. Already in the IGF >>Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour >>of a procedure that respected/recognized >>platforms of the four stakeholder groups make >>their own selections. More or less this was >>also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So >>lets just do it. We should come up with a group >>of the five from our network of CS organisations. >>BTW, I personally would be interested to get >>the European seat in the CS group of five. So I >>put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. >>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 >-- >João Carlos R. Caribé >Consultor >Skype joaocaribe >(021) 9 8761 1967 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 04:17:07 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:17:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Hi Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in consultation with the wider communities. One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no? Best Bill > On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 7 04:28:42 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:28:42 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642834@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Deidre, we should remember the "good old WSIS days". We had a similar situation in Geneva during PrepCom 3 in September 2003 when civil society - which during PrepCom2 and the InterSessional in Paris made some progress in getting access and speaking rights also in working group meetings - were frustrated that the 96 proposals which were made by the CS Content & Themes Group were not reflected in the intergovernmental draft resolution. WSIS I president Sammassekou, a minister from Mali and now a civil society activist, did promise in the beginning of PrepCom3 to move "from turmoil to trust" but civil society argued that this is impossible if "input has no impact". I did oversee a comparative analysis (with 20 students) which compared the CS proposals with the intergovernmental draft declaration and we concluded that 96 percent of the proposals from CS were ignored by the intergovernmental council. We called this ignorance "governmental arrogance" and we had stormy meetings in the CS plenary in our daily morning sessions whether civil society should leave WSIS (and start street protests downtown in Geneva) or stay in the room. CS was split over this issue. At the end of the day we stayed in the room and drafted our own CS declaration which was handed over officially to the president of WSIS I in the closing session. This declaration became something like an official document which is sitll on the WSIS/ITU Website and worth to read. And it had a useful sideeffect: CS became more formally recognized in the second WSIS Phase and got its equal part in the WGIG and later in the IGF MAG and in CSTD Working Groups. It would be a pity if we would see now a split of CS moving towards NMI. This would weaken the impact CS can have in the process. I prefer to make my arguments inside the room. I have argued since more than 10 years, that the multistakeholder model works only with a strong CS as an equal parter. Multistakeholder mechanisms are neiter onestakehooder nor bi-stakeholder mechanisms (big government plus big business). It Needs a Balance. Znis is the reason why I use both "respective roles and equal footing" (which was realoized more or less in Dao Paulo). The same with ICANNs multistakeholder model. It works only with a strong ALAC/NCSG/NCUC. There is much more potential for ALAC (and NCSG) after ATLAS II. With other words, our "CS Group of the Five" (CSCG) should have a critical but constructive approach to the NMI. I say this as the co-founder of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), now one of the Group of the Five. With regard to NMI: Nothing is here pre-determined. This are empty pages and we can participate in writing good texts (as we did with the Sao Paulo Declaration of Internet Governance Principles (which I know have some weaknesses but are in general a good document with a lot of references to human rights). Wolfgang Jeremy suggests " (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.)" but since the nomination process begins from the individual that may not be possible. CSCG may make a selection, but still not everyone in civil society subscribes to the idea of CSCG. And the Netmundial Initiative isn't clear about the process to demonstrate that one "belongs" to a particular group. And what happens if CSCG decides not to be involved? At a time when civil society needs to search within itself for the areas in which it can present a united front to defend itself and its rights, it seems instead to be being split apart and fragmented, and becoming more and more helpless. Or perhaps I'm just being pessimistic today :-( Deirdre On 6 November 2014 15:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes - I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a > week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting > names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have > discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that > would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a > few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and > the call for nominations is outlined at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all > people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a > good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, > and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this > list who listened in on the call - and in some cases were not able to ask > questions - so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from > these people and others. > > For me as an individual - I think the concept of a forum to deal with > orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the > intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial > structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society > are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would > welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a > way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only > way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had > drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the > Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) > and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in > crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. > The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on > developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to > de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate > but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a > permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and > contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be > changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the > NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's > work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in > stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on > evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent > seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, > except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be > distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the > technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and > intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across > all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew > skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did > invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, > ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide > between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's > point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do > so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in > order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a > week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a > nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Nov 7 14:43:21 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:43:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > > One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no? I definitely don't want (what is shaping into) such a corporate-dominated initiative elaborating on the NETmundial principles either. But the reason I keep raising this is twofold - first, to raise the stakes for other more inclusive forums/processes that have become complacent and failed to realise their potential, for which NETmundial could (and at the meeting in São Paulo, did) provide some healthy competition and the impetus for further reforms that would prevent them slipping into irrelevance. Second, due to the choice of name. It seems a bit odd when the most distinctive thing about NETmundial was that it produced a tangible outcome, that the continuation of NETmundial using its name is precluded from doing that. I would still rather they didn't freeride on the goodwill of the NETmundial name, for which may people feel a sense of community ownership, for something that is quite different. (But I realise that it's a tough argument to make when two of the main players behind NETmundial are driving the initiative.) -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 16:40:53 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:40:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> Hi, I would recommend a dual strategy. Let people nominate and self-nominate on the NMI site, and have CSCG make a recommendation from among those (self)nominations. This way we don't ignore their process, but we do the choosing for them. As for whether we participate or not, people from CS will participate it there is an opportunity to do so, whether and particular decides it is a good idea or not. And CS, which is always arguing for our voice, should participate anytime we are given a chance to do so. So yeah, if offered seats CS, will occupy them - only the selection process remains a question. And if there are choices to be made about who sits in the seats, the CSCG should weigh in on the choice. Also while I prefer to see nominations over self-nominations, i think both are appropriate both from experienced volunteers and new voices. I think we are always self selected in some way when we put ourselves forward to be chosen or rejected (and sometimes slammed) by those who make it their business to judge. avri On 06-Nov-14 14:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. > > For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 18:56:30 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:26:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> Message-ID: <67917B1B-B62B-4E9A-956D-BAB9CC1A1F47@hserus.net> I fully agree. Silly comments sneering about people who volunteer being "self selected" have been aired here in the past few days, and that's just not on. --srs (iPad) > On 08-Nov-2014, at 03:10, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I would recommend a dual strategy. > > Let people nominate and self-nominate on the NMI site, > and have CSCG make a recommendation from among those (self)nominations. > > This way we don't ignore their process, > but we do the choosing for them. > > As for whether we participate or not, people from CS will participate it there is an opportunity to do so, whether and particular decides it is a good idea or not. And CS, which is always arguing for our voice, should participate anytime we are given a chance to do so. So yeah, if offered seats CS, will occupy them - only the selection process remains a question. > > And if there are choices to be made about who sits in the seats, the CSCG should weigh in on the choice. > > > Also while I prefer to see nominations over self-nominations, i think both are appropriate both from experienced volunteers and new voices. I think we are always self selected in some way when we put ourselves forward to be chosen or rejected (and sometimes slammed) by those who make it their business to judge. > > avri > > >> On 06-Nov-14 14:21, Ian Peter wrote: >> Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. >> >> The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. >> >> CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. >> >> For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference >> >> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. >> >> The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. >> >> There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) >> >> The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, >> the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. >> >> There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) >> >> >> Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 20:53:37 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 21:53:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: For what it's worth -` There was a short meeting in Istanbul between a team from WEF and representatives of the CSCG. I was there to represent Mawaki, the IGC member of the CSCG. My impression from that meeting was that what was being proposed was essentially a clearinghouse for projects that would bring project proposers and potential funders together with the intention of " develop[ing] solutions where none exist". The WEF apparently already does something similar in a more general development context. This would be for specifically Internet/IG related projects. I thought I heard something similar yesterday, although everything was rather fuzzy. This may be completely erroneous but that's what it sounded like under the decoration. It may become clearer when the transcript is made available. Deirdre On 7 November 2014 08:53, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, Bill and others for the info. > Before we dive into our favourite pastime of arguing about who represents > whom and how they should be chosen, I'm interested to know what others > think about the value add of this forum in the first place. > Isn't "a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet and > .... develop solutions where none exist" a pretty good description of what > the IGF is or should be? Is there really a need for WEF and ICANN to divert > time and resources into creating another one? > best > Anne > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about >> the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the >> nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the >> technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. >> I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct >> groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been >> organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a >> coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them >> getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF >> will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will >> accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a >> challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. >> More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. >> >> How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will >> have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what >> the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One >> could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a >> facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits >> partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. >> But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be >> deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying >> a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, >> and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in >> consultation with the wider communities. >> >> One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM >> Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the >> August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A >> priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise >> the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to >> stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the >> discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive >> forums/processes, no? >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to >> find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had >> drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. >> >> The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised >> organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the >> Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and >> WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone >> in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for >> assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, >> and on developing solutions where there are gaps. >> >> There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly >> to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own >> separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to >> enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, >> and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not >> be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the >> NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's >> work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in >> stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on >> evolving them if someone proposed this.) >> >> The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are >> permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, >> the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil >> society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will >> be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the >> technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and >> intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across >> all geographical regions. >> >> There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew >> skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did >> invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, >> ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide >> between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's >> point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do >> so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in >> order to avoid giving WEF that power.) >> >> Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a >> week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a >> nomination process through the CSCG. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> https://eff.org >> jmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > Twitter: @afjellema > PGP: A84F061D > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “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 ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 21:04:35 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:04:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] list of 52 icann fellowship winners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ahmed eisa Date: Saturday, 8 November 2014 Subject: list of 52 icann fellowship winners To: Arab IGF mailing list Dear friends here is the list of the 52 icann fellowship list https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-07-en -- Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project -- Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 21:17:09 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:17:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] the announced list of the 52 icann fellowship Message-ID: Dear friends Here is the announced fellowship list of the icann 52 meeting in Singapore instead of marakesh and I have the honour to be listed ,,,, thanks to ICANN https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-07-en -- Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 08:21:32 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 07:21:32 -0600 Subject: Secure Unowned Hierarchical Anycast Root Name Service - And an Apologia (was Re: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship) Message-ID: Wolfgang, All, This article sheds light on the RFC in question: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141107_secure_unowned_hierarchical_anycast_root_name_service_and_apologia/ On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:19 PM, McTim wrote: > Wolfgang, > > Sorry I didn't get to say hello to you in L.A.! > > This is what was posted on DNS-OPS list last week: > > "Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root > Service Architecture. > >> Location: Hong Kong, HK >> Date: December 8-9, 2014 >> Hosted by: ISOC-HK >> Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC >> Co-chairs: Warren Kumari and Paul Vixie > > This two day workshop will focus on the DNS root service architecture > issues raised by two current Internet Drafts: > > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-root-loopback-00 > Decreasing Access Time to Root Servers by Running One on Loopback > W. Kumari, Ed.; P. Hoffman > > 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00 > How to scale the DNS root system? > Xiaodong Lee; Paul Vixie; Zhiwei Yan > > These two drafts take very different approaches to the problem of > increasing root zone availability to recursive name servers. In this > workshop we will explore the differences and similarities, with an eye > towards revising both drafts and clarifying their roles in the DNS > root service architecture. > > Invitations including travel support will be extended to root name > server operators (bcc'd here), and to the I-D authors. The workshop > will be open to any interested party, and presentations will be > streamed live and stored via Youtube. There will be no cost for > attending the workshop. Pre-registration will be required. > > Information on how to register and on the proposed agenda will be sent > shortly to this same distribution. For travel planning purposes, the > meeting will run all day on December 8, with a social event that > evening, and for half a day on December 9, finishing immediately after > lunchtime." > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> Thx. Stephane, this is useful and helpful. >> >> BTW, is there any discussion with rgard to the drafts on the number of root servers for the authoritative root? This was a (non-paper?) by Paul Vixie and two Chinese partners. What I have seen is that this was more or less watered down or rejected. Any news here? >> >> Thanks >> >> Wolfgang >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer >> Gesendet: Di 04.11.2014 14:47 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship >> >> Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these >> two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal >> >> Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when >> creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or >> working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar >> considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of >> expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for >> initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the >> possible connections between >> human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be >> to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol >> considerations. >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech >> >> This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship >> regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It >> aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols >> aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor >> end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions >> on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, >> intended to be a reference. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 8 17:04:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 14:04:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda Message-ID: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has surveyed/Delphied the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively advocating in this and other contexts). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Nov 9 06:17:57 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:17:57 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164283B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Michael, Thanks for the WEF Report. If we describe ICANN as the "microcosm" and WSIS/IGF/NetMundial as the "macrocosm" than this WEF report covers the "universe". The chapter on the Future of the Internet has some points (but also a number of omissions). I see a statement on p.89 which is interesting and which I can subscribe. The author supports a multistakeholder model with "no single point of failure or domination by a single group of set of interests". And furthermore: "We need a clearer understanding of the limits of goverment and corporate intervention online". Yes, this limits are needed. And civil society can and has to play here an important watchdog role against any type of domination. Wolfgang p. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: Sa 08.11.2014 23:04 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has surveyed/Delphied the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively advocating in this and other contexts). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 11:02:15 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:02:15 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_=E2=80=9CUbernet=E2=80=9D_is_Not_a_Fai?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_Accompli?= Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/11/why-ubernet-not-fait-accompli -- 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 remmyn at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 15:02:53 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:02:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda In-Reply-To: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Michael for sharing, but I would like some insight on what you mean by "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit" theory. Remmy Nweke On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" > activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has > surveyed/Delphied > the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. > > The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably > through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively > advocating in this and other contexts). > > http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf > > (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) > > M > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 17:14:53 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 14:14:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda In-Reply-To: References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <011401cffc6a$96f07e30$c4d17a90$@gmail.com> Hi Remmy, Both "the Onion" and "NetBiscuit") are spoof satirical news site. M From: Remmy Nweke [mailto:remmyn at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda Thanks Michael for sharing, but I would like some insight on what you mean by "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit" theory. Remmy Nweke On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has surveyed/Delphied the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively advocating in this and other contexts). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 - June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 17:25:37 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 23:25:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda In-Reply-To: <011401cffc6a$96f07e30$c4d17a90$@gmail.com> References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> <011401cffc6a$96f07e30$c4d17a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ok thanks On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Remmy, > > > > Both "the Onion" and "NetBiscuit") are spoof satirical news site... > > > > M > > > > *From:* Remmy Nweke [mailto:remmyn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2014 12:03 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 > Global Agenda > > > > Thanks Michael for sharing, but I would like some insight on what you mean > by "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit" theory. > > Remmy Nweke > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" > activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has > surveyed/Delphied > the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. > > The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably > through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively > advocating in this and other contexts). > > http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf > > (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) > > M > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > > ____ > > REMMY NWEKE, > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; > ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet > (Multiple-award winning medium) > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza > Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, > T: @ITRealms > > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < > http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the > intended > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 9 22:00:29 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:00:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thanks for this – it has been forwarded to CSCG members. So that people who are interested in nominating are aware –CSCG is working towards an announcement on lists by next Monday (November 17) as regards a CSCG involvement in an endorsement/nomination process. In the meantime, interested people might like to examine carefully the processes and information required for a nomination and start gathering the material required. The NMI form is at https://www.netmundial.org/make-nomination-coordination-council. One interesting requirement is to state whether the nominee’s Organisation (a specific piece of information sought) will officially endorse the NetMundial Principles. Given that many of our organisations have processes that would take some time to officially endorse NetMundial principles, this might need some fairly prompt attention. If you are thinking of nominating, I believe you should start considering the requirements now. CSCG will say something more about its possible involvement ASAP and by November 17: the overall timeframe is very tight. Ian Peter From: Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 8:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference Hi, I would recommend a dual strategy. Let people nominate and self-nominate on the NMI site, and have CSCG make a recommendation from among those (self)nominations. This way we don't ignore their process, but we do the choosing for them. As for whether we participate or not, people from CS will participate it there is an opportunity to do so, whether and particular decides it is a good idea or not. And CS, which is always arguing for our voice, should participate anytime we are given a chance to do so. So yeah, if offered seats CS, will occupy them - only the selection process remains a question. And if there are choices to be made about who sits in the seats, the CSCG should weigh in on the choice. Also while I prefer to see nominations over self-nominations, i think both are appropriate both from experienced volunteers and new voices. I think we are always self selected in some way when we put ourselves forward to be chosen or rejected (and sometimes slammed) by those who make it their business to judge. avri On 06-Nov-14 14:21, Ian Peter wrote: Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Mon Nov 10 04:21:21 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Privacy in UN References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642841@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/spying-un-idINKBN0IQ29C20141106 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Nov 10 05:42:46 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:42:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Privacy in UN Message-ID: <1935074913.6963.1415616166271.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Thanks Wolfgang   for this info which was also expected by a large part of European citizens ! As far as I'm concerned, I'd add some remarks. - The wording of the Draft Text would be clearer if it was completed by mentioning the the supposed authors of mass surveillance, namely a single state or a group of states, and/or corporation(s). The US NSA worldwide scandal involved both, countries and corporations. - Significantly and unfortunately, the Draft doesn't ask the WSIS organisers (ITU, Unesco, CSTD) to consider this question in its process and activities. A revealing omission ! That allows the ITU and its consorts to continue to put us to sleep with "success stories" and big rhetorics in "high level debates". Please, take notice that up to now, no one "stakeholder" has put this paramount isue on the WSIS agenda. Does CS will be waiting until one of the "Big fives" will do that ? :-)) - Quoting the last sentence of the Reuter's document  " we don't think that's (question : the Draft Text ?) justified" seems to bury the whole affaire before it is discussed in the UNGA ! A lot of lessons to be learnt from by NGOs, particularly those participating in the WSIS process ... as far as privacy and freedom of expression, but above all ETHICS in Information societies are in their agenda !    Best Jean-Louis Fulsack           > Message du 10/11/14 10:22 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Remmy Nweke" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "michael gurstein" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Privacy in UN > > FYI > > http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/spying-un-idINKBN0IQ29C20141106 > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 13:01:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:01:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something he has only done sporadically up to this point… There will be enormous discussions on the in`s and out`s of the decision and its implementation but establishing the necessity for involvement of formally constituted governance processes in Internet management in support of the public good is a very important precedent (which of course, is in contradiction to so many of the US`s actions and positions on the global Internet Governance stage. M From: nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org [mailto:nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org] On Behalf Of Kirsten Fiedler Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:39 AM To: nncoalition at mailman.edri.org Subject: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality ...including re-classification under Title II and: * No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business. * No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences. * Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet. * No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect. Great news! https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141110/06490829092/surprise-president-obama-calls-real-net-neutrality.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 17:58:28 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:28:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> The title 2 debate has been tainted by some extremely ill informed activism, and a lot of it has been in a style rather familiar to some in this caucus (painting isp carriers as blackmailers, eavesdroppers etc). Yes, substantial reform is needed but title 2 is an extremely onerous regulation. Also - kiss goodbye to the filtering of quite a lot of spam that isn't outright 419 advanced fee scams, phishing etc. the sort of stuff you see only in your mailbox and on late night cable TV will potentially have a free run. I foresee fun times ahead. The sort that happens when some people get exactly what they wished for. --srs (iPad) > On 10-Nov-2014, at 23:31, michael gurstein wrote: > > I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something he has only done sporadically up to this point… > > There will be enormous discussions on the in`s and out`s of the decision and its implementation but establishing the necessity for involvement of formally constituted governance processes in Internet management in support of the public good is a very important precedent (which of course, is in contradiction to so many of the US`s actions and positions on the global Internet Governance stage. > > M > > From: nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org [mailto:nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org] On Behalf Of Kirsten Fiedler > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:39 AM > To: nncoalition at mailman.edri.org > Subject: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality > > ...including re-classification under Title II and: > No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business. > No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences. > Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet. > No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect. > Great news! > https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141110/06490829092/surprise-president-obama-calls-real-net-neutrality.shtml > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 10 21:15:51 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:45:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1499ca2ac38.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Prof Faulhaber has it exactly right. --- Forwarded message --- From: "Dave Farber via ip" Date: November 11, 2014 6:18:21 AM Subject: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone To: "ip" I agree. djf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" Date: Nov 10, 2014 1:51 PM Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone To: "Dave Farber" Cc: Being on the same side of an argument as Ted Cruz is quite disturbing, I admit;-) But I find the Obama NN announcement to be very wrong, on several levels: i) he shouldn't be telling an independent agency what to do; ii) he is specifically stating his preference for Title II rather than Section 706 for no apparent reason; (iii) he seems to have no understanding of the "dead hand of regulation" and how it can stultify the Internet, and iv) he is giving succor to nations like China, Russia, etc. that also want to regulate the Internet and will see any US action in that direction as a good excuse to do so. Here's some statements from AEI economists on the Obama NN announcement. Very critical of the announcement (no surprise there), but rather more measured than Cruz: The Obama administration just announced its support for Title II reclassification of the Internet. While President Obama acknowledged the independence of the FCC in his controversial statement, his call for reclassification is a noteworthy intervention in ongoing rulemaking procedures. AEI’s scholars share their thoughts on the announcement’s implications for ISPs and consumers alike. *Jeffrey Eisenach:* The Federal Communications Commission was created to be an independent regulatory agency, above and beyond the reach of crass politics. The White House’s decision to intervene in an ongoing rulemaking makes a mockery of any sense of independence or impartiality. A legitimate case can be made that a decision as large, and as lacking in statutory basis, as the FCC’s intervention in the net neutrality matter is correctly a matter for politicians, not bureaucrats. To the extent that is the case, however, there is only one legitimate route, and it starts in the Congress, not the White House. If the FCC bows to pressure from the White House on this issue, the agency’s reputation will suffer a terrible stain. *Bret Swanson:* The Internet in the US has thrived almost beyond imagination under a multi-decade, bipartisan stance of policy restraint. Imposing Title II telephone regulations on the wildly successful US Internet would be a historic economic blunder. *Roslyn Layton:* During the President’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement from the President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new Secretary. This statement is not only a terrible message for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Read my articles about this here and here . *Daniel Lyons:* Title II reclassification would impose upon a vibrant Internet a legal regime designed in the 1930s to control the old AT&T monopoly. Indeed, the proposed ban on paid prioritization is more stringent than the obligations we once shackled on Ma Bell. The White House’s proposal to homogenize broadband Internet access is inconsistent with an increasingly diverse marketplace and would deprive Americans of countless innovative business models currently proliferating worldwide. Individualized bargaining allows for experimentation and testing of potentially more efficient business models that could get consumers the content and services that they need better than existing practices. Broadband policies turn upon a host of highly technical issues, in both fixed and wireless markets, that cannot be reduced to political sound bytes. This is why these policy decisions are firmly vested in the hands of an independent agency with the technical expertise to understand the nuances of these policies, insulated from the very political pressure that the White House is attempting to bring to bear on the Commission. There are numerous potentially pro-consumer alternatives to one-size-fits-all broadband access. Whatever rules the Commission ultimately adopts should allow for innovation that provides consumers with the services they desire online, wherever that innovation occurs in the Internet ecosystem. *Richard Bennett:* Overall broadband quality in the United States is better than broadband quality in all comparable nations thanks to the facilities-based competition model that we’ve followed since the Clinton Administration. President Obama’s desire to abandon our home-grown policy framework in favor of the approach used in the worst-performing nations such as Italy and France amounts to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and compromises the FCC’s legal independence. It’s unfortunate that the White House refuses to put the well-being of the American people above the wishes of misguided and poorly informed activists. *Mark Jamison:* The Administration’s announcing how it wants the Federal Communications Commission to decide on Title II regulation of the Internet does not bode well for broadband in the US. The FCC is an independent agency for a reason, namely to keep politics at arm’s length from critical infrastructure investment. Studies over the past 20 years have confirmed what Congress knew 80 years ago when it developed the agency: Politicians like to expropriate the value of infrastructure for their own political ends, and this hurts customers by scaring off investment. An independent agency is intended to stand between politics and investment by regulating under the law through a fact-oriented, transparent process. Whether the Internet has utility and common carriage features that merit Title II treatment is an issue for Congress or for the FCC, deciding under its statutory authority and subject to judicial review." Professor Emeritus Gerald Faulhaber Business Economics and Public Policy Dept. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania *Professor Emeritus, Law School* *University of Pennsylvania* *From:* farber at gmail.com [mailto:farber at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave Farber *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 1:59 PM *To:* Faulhaber, Gerald *Subject:* Fwd: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Dewayne Hendricks" Date: Nov 10, 2014 9:36 AM Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" Cc: Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone Obamacare is bad, so this must be bad, right? By T.C. Sottek Nov 10 2014 < http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants > Republicans just dominated Democrats in the midterm elections, and by all popular accounts Obama may become one of the lamest lame ducks in history — the GOP simply hates the guy and it seems unlikely he's going to get anything meaningful done before he leaves office. So we're now entering the presidential "say whatever you want" phase, marked today by the president's strong new stance on rigorous net neutrality regulation. Republican leadership was quick to respond: This is an insanely cynical tactic that should worry all citizens regardless of political stripe, and it's coming from the guys at the top; Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a powerful member of the GOP in the Senate and a potential presidential candidate for 2016. Republicans just took over Congress and hold the keys to policymaking for at least the next two years. If the best they can continue to come up with is repeating "Obama is bad!" the internet is in serious trouble. Net neutrality is obviously nothing like Obamacare, but Cruz and his colleagues have already demonstrated they either don't understand what internet freedom means or they're willing to spread mendacious propaganda about it to help their friends at Verizon, Comcast, and other monopolistic ISPs. Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peak at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: ------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 10 21:50:49 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:50:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> Message-ID: <774b750908584453abfd86851ccf47cc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> On 10-Nov-2014, at 23:31, michael gurstein > wrote: I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something he has only done sporadically up to this point… Gosh. What a lucky man Mr. Gurstein is. The world is such a simple place. There are citizens and there are corporates. Citizens are good, and corporates are bad. It is so easy to decide what is right. Let’s overlook the fact that Netflix, Google, and dozens of other over the top services are corporations and advocates of net neutrality. That would complicate things. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 10 21:52:20 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:22:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <774b750908584453abfd86851ccf47cc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> <774b750908584453abfd86851ccf47cc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1499cc40f18.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> If this was fb I would click like and share. Anyway I will restrict myself to just saying +1 On November 11, 2014 8:21:12 AM Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > On 10-Nov-2014, at 23:31, michael gurstein > > wrote: > I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding > for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something > he has only done sporadically up to this point… > > > Gosh. What a lucky man Mr. Gurstein is. The world is such a simple place. > There are citizens and there are corporates. Citizens are good, and > corporates are bad. It is so easy to decide what is right. > Let’s overlook the fact that Netflix, Google, and dozens of other over the > top services are corporations and advocates of net neutrality. That would > complicate things. > > > Milton L Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 12 00:07:14 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:37:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs Message-ID: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' unauthorised' was removed. Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the below article. parminder ----- *Title :* TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns *Date :* 11 November 2014 *Contents:* TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) 12 November 2014 Third World Network _________________________________________________________________________________________ *Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns* Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection and enforcement on development. The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. (For details see: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) The conference has the following three objectives: (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding counterfeit devices. The conference will have the following four sessions (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): * Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products; * Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; * Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); * Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), representatives of international organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). The curious case of participation is the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and generic medicines are the same.) Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and unfair competition. However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI numbers. (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being shipped to a third country”. Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. *ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon* ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and equipment as well as accessories and components”. The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available under the IP laws of many countries. One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT equipment. In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and Sector Members; (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of limiting them; (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being transported to developing countries; (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. ITU’s 14^th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on counterfeit. However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work program for the next four years.) The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged work program on IP enforcement. The Busan Resolution recognises: /a) /the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences thereof for users, governments and the private sector; /b) / that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; /c) /that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening consumers and the environment; /d) / that some countries have adopted measures to raise awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: /a) /that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country; /b) / that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication standards-development organizations related to these matters. The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices; (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices. It also invites all the membership to: (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment.” Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national telecommunication/ICT strategies. It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in other appropriate ways”.+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 00:28:11 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:58:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust free environment is required for manufacturing. They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder wrote: > Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the > resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained > our guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which > posed the danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term > ' unauthorised' was removed. > > Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a > member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is > problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in > Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil > society groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns > raised in the below article. > > parminder > > ----- > > *Title :* TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property > enforcement raises concerns > *Date :* 11 November 2014 > > *Contents:* > > TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) > 12 November 2014 > Third World Network > > _________________________________________________________________________________________ > > *Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns* > > Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on > intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International > Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP > protection and enforcement on development. > > The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications > technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and > Substandard ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in > Geneva, Switzerland. (For details see: > http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) > > The conference has the following three objectives: > > (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and > substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; > > (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, > practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight > against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; > > (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development > organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global > strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT > products as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns > regarding counterfeit devices. > > The conference will have the following four sessions > (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): > > * Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit > and Substandard ICT Products; > * Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; > * Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and > Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); > * Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the > Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. > > The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry > associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, > International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & > Associations), representatives of international organisations such as > the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs > Organization (WCO), World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for > Economic and Development Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of > the European Union, and ICT transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, > Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). > > The curious case of participation is the International Federation of > Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only > participant that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, > IFPMMA has long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough > enforcement by cleverly conflating IP enforcement with the quality of > medicines. > > (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition > with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing > the public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines > that are about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable > quality, and generic medicines are the same.) > > Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to > push for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. > The submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference > states that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including > health and safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of > tax revenue and unfair competition. > > However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the > participants. For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both > counterfeit and substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties > to the rightful intellectual right holders”. It further states that > counterfeit mobile phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of > an original or authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the > trademark (brand) of an original well recognised brand, copies the form > factor of the original product, and/or copies the packaging of the > original product”. > > The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal > backing to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile > Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to > track a phone. IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF > proposes the same system to enforce IP. Often, through parallel > importation, mobile handsets are sold in informal markets with altered > IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of national laws to prohibit the > alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to make it a criminal > offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI numbers. > > (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP > protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside > the importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is > not needed and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) > > The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile > phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened > to be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge > loophole for criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world > as customs officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products > that are being shipped to a third country”. > > Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the > power to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the > requirement under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) > Agreement. > > *ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon* > > ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by > developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The > IP enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following > multilateral organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal > Union, INTERPOL, UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these > organisations IP enforcement initiatives were pushed in the form of a > public private partnership (PPP) to achieve the goal of enforcing a > private privilege (which a reward for inventiveness and innovation is > and not a “right”) using public money. Developing countries have > opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the several multilateral > organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. > > The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching > implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local > manufacturing capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and > medium sized enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad > any IP enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but > also many areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. > > Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication > Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in > Dubai, United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: > “Counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or > copied devices and equipment as well as accessories and components”. > > The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for > “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in > the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. > These flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing > countries to innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp > down the “grey market” and to use service providers to deny services for > devices that are in the grey market would compromise the parallel > importation tool available under the IP laws of many countries. > > One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is > to incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting > and to ensure that products which do not comply with a country's > applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or > other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized > for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that > country. Thus the upcoming November Conference is an event that offers > a glimmer into the real action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. > > The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard > setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global > compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that > developed county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the > standards on protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken > the work program to develop a technical report on counterfeited and > substandard ICT equipment. > > In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with > operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications > management), in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: > > (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting > counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States > and Sector Members; > > (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member > States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing > public awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best > ways of limiting them; > > (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being > transported to developing countries; > > (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from > the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. > > ITU’s 14^th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 > November 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on > “Combating counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication > technology devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing > on counterfeit. > > However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in > 2010. The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted > Resolution 177 on “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution > invited the “Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in > close collaboration with the Director of the Telecommunication > Standardization Bureau and the Director of the Radio communication > Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect > to counterfeit equipment”. > > Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear > in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries > concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their > telecommunication infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns > of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. > > (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of > ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets > the Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial > plans; and elects the senior management team of the organization, the > members of Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets > the work program for the next four years.) > > The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a > full-fledged work program on IP enforcement. > > The Busan Resolution recognises: > > /a) /the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of > counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences > thereof for users, governments and the private sector; > > /b) / that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may negatively > impact on security and quality of service for users; > > /c) /that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often contain > illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening > consumers and the environment; > > /d) / that some countries have adopted measures to raise awareness of > this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the spread of > counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing countries > may benefit from learning from those experiences; > > Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: > > /a) /that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not comply > with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory > requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be > considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication > networks of that country; > > /b) / that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to play in > fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the impact > of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and to > identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; > > The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: > > (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to > counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at > regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; > > (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU > Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the > necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or > duplication of unique device identifiers, interacting with other > telecommunication standards-development organizations related to these > matters. > > The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: > > (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit > telecommunication/ICT devices; > > (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and > > (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit > telecommunication/ICT devices. > > It also invites all the membership to: > > (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating > counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; > > (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of > unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. > > The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference > invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and > regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that > negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure > and services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing > countries with respect to counterfeit equipment.” > > Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: > > (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; > > (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; > > (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their > national telecommunication/ICT strategies. > > It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with > governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in > combating counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and > disposing of them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and > Academia to participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication > Sector) studies relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting > contributions and in other appropriate ways”.+ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 00:32:55 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:32:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not confused with any other application. Which really needs to be vitiated. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust > free environment is required for manufacturing. > > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. > > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. > > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder > wrote: >> >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >> unauthorised' was removed. >> >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the >> below article. >> >> parminder >> >> ----- >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement >> raises concerns >> Date : 11 November 2014 >> >> Contents: >> >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >> 12 November 2014 >> Third World Network >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >> >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection >> and enforcement on development. >> >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. >> (For details see: >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >> >> The conference has the following three objectives: >> >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >> >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >> >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >> counterfeit devices. >> >> The conference will have the following four sessions >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >> >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >> Substandard ICT Products; >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >> >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), >> representatives of international organisations such as the World >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >> >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >> >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and >> generic medicines are the same.) >> >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and >> unfair competition. >> >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >> >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI >> numbers. >> >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >> >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being >> shipped to a third country”. >> >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >> >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >> >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. >> >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >> >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >> >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available >> under the IP laws of many countries. >> >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >> >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >> equipment. >> >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >> >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and >> Sector Members; >> >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of >> limiting them; >> >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >> transported to developing countries; >> >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >> >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >> counterfeit. >> >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >> program for the next four years.) >> >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged >> work program on IP enforcement. >> >> The Busan Resolution recognises: >> >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >> >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >> >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening >> consumers and the environment; >> >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >> >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >> >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >> networks of that country; >> >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >> >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: >> >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >> >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >> >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices; >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and >> >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices. >> >> It also invites all the membership to: >> >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >> >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >> >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >> >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >> >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in >> other appropriate ways”.+ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 12 00:45:50 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:15:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson wrote: > Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not > confused with any other application. Which really needs to be > vitiated. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized > > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be > > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust > > free environment is required for manufacturing. > > > > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus > > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. > > > > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP > > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. > > > > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder > > wrote: > >> > >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the > >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our > >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the > >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' > >> unauthorised' was removed. > >> > >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a > >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is > >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in > >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society > >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the > >> below article. > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement > >> raises concerns > >> Date : 11 November 2014 > >> > >> Contents: > >> > >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) > >> 12 November 2014 > >> Third World Network > >> > >> > >> > _________________________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns > >> > >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on > >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International > >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection > >> and enforcement on development. > >> > >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications > >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard > >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. > >> (For details see: > >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) > >> > >> The conference has the following three objectives: > >> > >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and > >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; > >> > >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, > >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight > >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; > >> > >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development > >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global > >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products > >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding > >> counterfeit devices. > >> > >> The conference will have the following four sessions > >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): > >> > >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and > >> Substandard ICT Products; > >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; > >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and > >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); > >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the > >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. > >> > >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry > >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, > >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), > >> representatives of international organisations such as the World > >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), > >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development > >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT > >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). > >> > >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of > >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant > >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has > >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly > >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. > >> > >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition > >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the > >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are > >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and > >> generic medicines are the same.) > >> > >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push > >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The > >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states > >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and > >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and > >> unfair competition. > >> > >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. > >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and > >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful > >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile > >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or > >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) > >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original > >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. > >> > >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing > >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment > >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. > >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system > >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold > >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of > >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to > >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI > >> numbers. > >> > >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP > >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the > >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed > >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) > >> > >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile > >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to > >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for > >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs > >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being > >> shipped to a third country”. > >> > >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power > >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement > >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. > >> > >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon > >> > >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by > >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP > >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral > >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN > >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement > >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to > >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for > >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. > >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the > >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. > >> > >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching > >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing > >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized > >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP > >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many > >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. > >> > >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication > >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, > >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and > >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. > >> > >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for > >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the > >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These > >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to > >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey > >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are > >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available > >> under the IP laws of many countries. > >> > >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to > >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to > >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable > >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other > >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale > >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the > >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real > >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. > >> > >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard > >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global > >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed > >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on > >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program > >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT > >> equipment. > >> > >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with > >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), > >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: > >> > >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting > >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and > >> Sector Members; > >> > >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member > >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public > >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of > >> limiting them; > >> > >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being > >> transported to developing countries; > >> > >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from > >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. > >> > >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November > >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating > >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology > >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on > >> counterfeit. > >> > >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. > >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on > >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of > >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the > >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of > >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their > >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. > >> > >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear > >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning > >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication > >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing > >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. > >> > >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of > >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the > >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; > >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of > >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work > >> program for the next four years.) > >> > >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged > >> work program on IP enforcement. > >> > >> The Busan Resolution recognises: > >> > >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of > >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences > >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; > >> > >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may > >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; > >> > >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often > >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening > >> consumers and the environment; > >> > >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise > >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the > >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing > >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; > >> > >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: > >> > >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not > >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and > >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be > >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication > >> networks of that country; > >> > >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to > >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the > >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and > >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; > >> > >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: > >> > >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to > >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at > >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; > >> > >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU > >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the > >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication > >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication > >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. > >> > >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: > >> > >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices; > >> > >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and > >> > >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices. > >> > >> It also invites all the membership to: > >> > >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; > >> > >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of > >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. > >> > >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference > >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and > >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that > >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and > >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries > >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” > >> > >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: > >> > >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; > >> > >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; > >> > >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national > >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. > >> > >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with > >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating > >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of > >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to > >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies > >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in > >> other appropriate ways”.+ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 08:19:30 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:19:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Working on distinguishing "IP enforcement" right now establishes the distinction before the transition of identifiers functions is implemented. Avoids just baking things into infrastructure without first confronting and addressing what that means, including at bottom the simple point that "IP enforcement" is different from other things people want to do. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate > legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. > Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a > typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. > > > > > On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson > wrote: > >> Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not >> confused with any other application. Which really needs to be >> vitiated. >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized >> > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may >> > be >> > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of >> > dust >> > free environment is required for manufacturing. >> > >> > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus >> > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. >> > >> > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP >> > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. >> > >> > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >> >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained >> >> our >> >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed >> >> the >> >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >> >> unauthorised' was removed. >> >> >> >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >> >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >> >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >> >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil >> >> society >> >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in >> >> the >> >> below article. >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property >> >> enforcement >> >> raises concerns >> >> Date : 11 November 2014 >> >> >> >> Contents: >> >> >> >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >> >> 12 November 2014 >> >> Third World Network >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >> >> >> >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >> >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >> >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP >> >> protection >> >> and enforcement on development. >> >> >> >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >> >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and >> >> Substandard >> >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, >> >> Switzerland. >> >> (For details see: >> >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >> >> >> >> The conference has the following three objectives: >> >> >> >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >> >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >> >> >> >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >> >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >> >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >> >> >> >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >> >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >> >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT >> >> products >> >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >> >> counterfeit devices. >> >> >> >> The conference will have the following four sessions >> >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >> >> >> >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >> >> Substandard ICT Products; >> >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >> >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >> >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >> >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >> >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >> >> >> >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >> >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >> >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & >> >> Associations), >> >> representatives of international organisations such as the World >> >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization >> >> (WCO), >> >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and >> >> Development >> >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and >> >> ICT >> >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >> >> >> >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >> >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only >> >> participant >> >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >> >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by >> >> cleverly >> >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >> >> >> >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >> >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing >> >> the >> >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that >> >> are >> >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, >> >> and >> >> generic medicines are the same.) >> >> >> >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to >> >> push >> >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >> >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference >> >> states >> >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >> >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue >> >> and >> >> unfair competition. >> >> >> >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the >> >> participants. >> >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >> >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the >> >> rightful >> >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >> >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >> >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark >> >> (brand) >> >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the >> >> original >> >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >> >> >> >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal >> >> backing >> >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile >> >> Equipment >> >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a >> >> phone. >> >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same >> >> system >> >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are >> >> sold >> >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >> >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, >> >> and to >> >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered >> >> IMEI >> >> numbers. >> >> >> >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >> >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside >> >> the >> >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not >> >> needed >> >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >> >> >> >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >> >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they >> >> happened to >> >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge >> >> loophole for >> >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >> >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are >> >> being >> >> shipped to a third country”. >> >> >> >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the >> >> power >> >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the >> >> requirement >> >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >> >> >> >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >> >> >> >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >> >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. >> >> The IP >> >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following >> >> multilateral >> >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, >> >> INTERPOL, UN >> >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP >> >> enforcement >> >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership >> >> (PPP) to >> >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >> >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >> >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in >> >> the >> >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and >> >> IPU. >> >> >> >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >> >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local >> >> manufacturing >> >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >> >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >> >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also >> >> many >> >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >> >> >> >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >> >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in >> >> Dubai, >> >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: >> >> “Counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices >> >> and >> >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >> >> >> >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >> >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in >> >> the >> >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. >> >> These >> >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing >> >> countries to >> >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >> >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that >> >> are >> >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool >> >> available >> >> under the IP laws of many countries. >> >> >> >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is >> >> to >> >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and >> >> to >> >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >> >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >> >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for >> >> sale >> >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus >> >> the >> >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the >> >> real >> >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >> >> >> >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >> >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >> >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that >> >> developed >> >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >> >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work >> >> program >> >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >> >> equipment. >> >> >> >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals >> >> with >> >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications >> >> management), >> >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >> >> >> >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >> >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States >> >> and >> >> Sector Members; >> >> >> >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >> >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing >> >> public >> >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways >> >> of >> >> limiting them; >> >> >> >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >> >> transported to developing countries; >> >> >> >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste >> >> from >> >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >> >> >> >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 >> >> November >> >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >> >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >> >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >> >> counterfeit. >> >> >> >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in >> >> 2010. >> >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 >> >> on >> >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the >> >> “Director of >> >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with >> >> the >> >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the >> >> Director of >> >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing >> >> their >> >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> >> >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to >> >> bear >> >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries >> >> concerning >> >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their >> >> telecommunication >> >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> >> >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body >> >> of >> >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets >> >> the >> >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial >> >> plans; >> >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members >> >> of >> >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >> >> program for the next four years.) >> >> >> >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a >> >> full-fledged >> >> work program on IP enforcement. >> >> >> >> The Busan Resolution recognises: >> >> >> >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation >> >> of >> >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >> >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >> >> >> >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >> >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >> >> >> >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >> >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, >> >> threatening >> >> consumers and the environment; >> >> >> >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >> >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >> >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that >> >> developing >> >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >> >> >> >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >> >> >> >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do >> >> not >> >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >> >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should >> >> be >> >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >> >> networks of that country; >> >> >> >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles >> >> to >> >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study >> >> the >> >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use >> >> and >> >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >> >> >> >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux >> >> to: >> >> >> >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >> >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing >> >> at >> >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >> >> >> >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >> >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking >> >> the >> >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or >> >> duplication >> >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >> >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >> >> >> >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >> >> >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices; >> >> >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> and >> >> >> >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating >> >> counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices. >> >> >> >> It also invites all the membership to: >> >> >> >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating >> >> counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >> >> >> >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >> >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >> >> >> >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >> >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >> >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >> >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >> >> infrastructure and >> >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> >> countries >> >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >> >> >> >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >> >> >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >> >> >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> >> >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their >> >> national >> >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >> >> >> >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >> >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in >> >> combating >> >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing >> >> of >> >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >> >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) >> >> studies >> >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions >> >> and in >> >> other appropriate ways”.+ >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 12 09:15:44 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:45:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Fair point --srs (iPad) > On 12-Nov-2014, at 18:49, Seth Johnson wrote: > > Working on distinguishing "IP enforcement" right now establishes the > distinction before the transition of identifiers functions is > implemented. Avoids just baking things into infrastructure without > first confronting and addressing what that means, including at bottom > the simple point that "IP enforcement" is different from other things > people want to do. > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate >> legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. >> Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a >> typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. >> >> >> >> >> On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not >>> confused with any other application. Which really needs to be >>> vitiated. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>>> I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized >>>> machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may >>>> be >>>> hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of >>>> dust >>>> free environment is required for manufacturing. >>>> >>>> They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus >>>> components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. >>>> >>>> Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP >>>> enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. >>>> >>>> On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >>>>> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained >>>>> our >>>>> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed >>>>> the >>>>> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >>>>> unauthorised' was removed. >>>>> >>>>> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >>>>> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >>>>> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >>>>> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil >>>>> society >>>>> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in >>>>> the >>>>> below article. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property >>>>> enforcement >>>>> raises concerns >>>>> Date : 11 November 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Contents: >>>>> >>>>> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >>>>> 12 November 2014 >>>>> Third World Network >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >>>>> >>>>> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >>>>> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >>>>> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP >>>>> protection >>>>> and enforcement on development. >>>>> >>>>> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >>>>> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and >>>>> Substandard >>>>> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, >>>>> Switzerland. >>>>> (For details see: >>>>> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >>>>> >>>>> The conference has the following three objectives: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >>>>> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >>>>> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >>>>> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >>>>> >>>>> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >>>>> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >>>>> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT >>>>> products >>>>> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >>>>> counterfeit devices. >>>>> >>>>> The conference will have the following four sessions >>>>> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >>>>> >>>>> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >>>>> Substandard ICT Products; >>>>> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >>>>> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >>>>> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >>>>> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >>>>> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >>>>> >>>>> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >>>>> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >>>>> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & >>>>> Associations), >>>>> representatives of international organisations such as the World >>>>> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization >>>>> (WCO), >>>>> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and >>>>> Development >>>>> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and >>>>> ICT >>>>> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >>>>> >>>>> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >>>>> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only >>>>> participant >>>>> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >>>>> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by >>>>> cleverly >>>>> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >>>>> >>>>> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >>>>> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing >>>>> the >>>>> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that >>>>> are >>>>> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, >>>>> and >>>>> generic medicines are the same.) >>>>> >>>>> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to >>>>> push >>>>> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >>>>> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference >>>>> states >>>>> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >>>>> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue >>>>> and >>>>> unfair competition. >>>>> >>>>> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the >>>>> participants. >>>>> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >>>>> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the >>>>> rightful >>>>> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >>>>> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >>>>> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark >>>>> (brand) >>>>> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the >>>>> original >>>>> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >>>>> >>>>> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal >>>>> backing >>>>> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile >>>>> Equipment >>>>> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a >>>>> phone. >>>>> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same >>>>> system >>>>> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are >>>>> sold >>>>> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >>>>> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, >>>>> and to >>>>> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered >>>>> IMEI >>>>> numbers. >>>>> >>>>> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >>>>> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside >>>>> the >>>>> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not >>>>> needed >>>>> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >>>>> >>>>> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >>>>> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they >>>>> happened to >>>>> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge >>>>> loophole for >>>>> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >>>>> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are >>>>> being >>>>> shipped to a third country”. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the >>>>> power >>>>> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the >>>>> requirement >>>>> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >>>>> >>>>> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >>>>> >>>>> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >>>>> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. >>>>> The IP >>>>> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following >>>>> multilateral >>>>> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, >>>>> INTERPOL, UN >>>>> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP >>>>> enforcement >>>>> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership >>>>> (PPP) to >>>>> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >>>>> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >>>>> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in >>>>> the >>>>> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and >>>>> IPU. >>>>> >>>>> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >>>>> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local >>>>> manufacturing >>>>> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >>>>> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >>>>> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also >>>>> many >>>>> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >>>>> >>>>> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >>>>> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in >>>>> Dubai, >>>>> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: >>>>> “Counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices >>>>> and >>>>> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >>>>> >>>>> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >>>>> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in >>>>> the >>>>> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. >>>>> These >>>>> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing >>>>> countries to >>>>> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >>>>> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that >>>>> are >>>>> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool >>>>> available >>>>> under the IP laws of many countries. >>>>> >>>>> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is >>>>> to >>>>> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and >>>>> to >>>>> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >>>>> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >>>>> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for >>>>> sale >>>>> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus >>>>> the >>>>> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the >>>>> real >>>>> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >>>>> >>>>> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >>>>> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >>>>> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that >>>>> developed >>>>> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >>>>> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work >>>>> program >>>>> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >>>>> equipment. >>>>> >>>>> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals >>>>> with >>>>> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications >>>>> management), >>>>> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >>>>> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States >>>>> and >>>>> Sector Members; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >>>>> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing >>>>> public >>>>> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways >>>>> of >>>>> limiting them; >>>>> >>>>> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >>>>> transported to developing countries; >>>>> >>>>> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste >>>>> from >>>>> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >>>>> >>>>> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 >>>>> November >>>>> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >>>>> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >>>>> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >>>>> counterfeit. >>>>> >>>>> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in >>>>> 2010. >>>>> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 >>>>> on >>>>> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the >>>>> “Director of >>>>> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with >>>>> the >>>>> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the >>>>> Director of >>>>> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing >>>>> their >>>>> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >>>>> >>>>> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to >>>>> bear >>>>> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries >>>>> concerning >>>>> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their >>>>> telecommunication >>>>> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >>>>> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >>>>> >>>>> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body >>>>> of >>>>> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets >>>>> the >>>>> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial >>>>> plans; >>>>> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members >>>>> of >>>>> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >>>>> program for the next four years.) >>>>> >>>>> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a >>>>> full-fledged >>>>> work program on IP enforcement. >>>>> >>>>> The Busan Resolution recognises: >>>>> >>>>> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation >>>>> of >>>>> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >>>>> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >>>>> >>>>> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >>>>> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >>>>> >>>>> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >>>>> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, >>>>> threatening >>>>> consumers and the environment; >>>>> >>>>> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >>>>> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >>>>> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that >>>>> developing >>>>> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >>>>> >>>>> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >>>>> >>>>> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do >>>>> not >>>>> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >>>>> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should >>>>> be >>>>> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >>>>> networks of that country; >>>>> >>>>> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles >>>>> to >>>>> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study >>>>> the >>>>> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use >>>>> and >>>>> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >>>>> >>>>> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux >>>>> to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >>>>> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing >>>>> at >>>>> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >>>>> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking >>>>> the >>>>> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or >>>>> duplication >>>>> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >>>>> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >>>>> >>>>> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating >>>>> counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices. >>>>> >>>>> It also invites all the membership to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating >>>>> counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >>>>> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >>>>> >>>>> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >>>>> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >>>>> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >>>>> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >>>>> infrastructure and >>>>> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >>>>> countries >>>>> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >>>>> >>>>> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >>>>> >>>>> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their >>>>> national >>>>> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >>>>> >>>>> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >>>>> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in >>>>> combating >>>>> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing >>>>> of >>>>> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >>>>> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) >>>>> studies >>>>> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions >>>>> and in >>>>> other appropriate ways”.+ >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your 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 Wed Nov 12 21:17:13 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:17:13 -0600 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN Message-ID: So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Nov 13 01:13:25 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 01:13:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21604.19461.379207.367022@world.std.com> From: McTim >So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > >https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en More precisely, "not property subject to attachment under District of Columbia law". The reasoning rests more on "A ccTLD, like a domain name, cannot be conceptualized apart from the services provided by these parties. The Court cannot order plaintiffs' insertion into this arrangement." https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-quash-writs-10nov14-en.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/pmu2trj for the decision text, short, 8 pages. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Nov 13 02:50:26 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:50:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <21604.19461.379207.367022@world.std.com> References: <21604.19461.379207.367022@world.std.com> Message-ID: <21604.25282.729268.357075@world.std.com> Also, last page, last words of the decision (footnote 2): "The Court notes that judicial decisions have construed domain names to be a form of intangible property. See...But the conclusion that ccTLDs may not be attached in satisfaction of judgement under District of Columbia law does not mean they cannot be property. It simply means that they are not attachable property within this statutory scheme..." (link below) On November 13, 2014 at 01:13 bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: > > From: McTim > >So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > > > >https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > More precisely, "not property subject to attachment under District of > Columbia law". > > The reasoning rests more on "A ccTLD, like a domain name, cannot be > conceptualized apart from the services provided by these parties. The > Court cannot order plaintiffs' insertion into this arrangement." > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-quash-writs-10nov14-en.pdf > > or > > http://tinyurl.com/pmu2trj > > for the decision text, short, 8 pages. > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 13 09:21:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:51:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? parminder On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: > So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 13 09:38:48 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:08:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte powers The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of those drugs, and the firm sued. The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: > The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this > way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key > global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of > course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on > that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: > > So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Nov 13 11:15:25 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:15:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Who did, not so long ago, expressed concerns about silly comments? - Remember my comment about the fact that WK - an ICANN member - self-nominated himself to represent European civil society at the "NMI" where ICANN, the WEF and CGI.br have already attributed themselves seats? Suresh, on this one you deserve a palm! Congrats. All countries have long arms and ex parte powers, so let's the US use its owns over the planet and every citizen whatever its citizenry is - he will have to use its own long arm and ex parte powers to survive any US outrage. Joli programme. Le 13 nov. 2014 à 15:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte powers > > The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of those drugs, and the firm sued. > > The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. > On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: > >> >> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: >>> So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 13 11:23:03 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:53:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <149a9f70aa0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> He indicated that he would stand for election, a concept that might not be unknown in France. On November 13, 2014 9:46:30 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Who did, not so long ago, expressed concerns about silly comments? - > Remember my comment about the fact that WK - an ICANN member - > self-nominated himself to represent European civil society at the "NMI" > where ICANN, the WEF and CGI.br have already attributed themselves seats? > > Suresh, on this one you deserve a palm! Congrats. All countries have long > arms and ex parte powers, so let's the US use its owns over the planet and > every citizen whatever its citizenry is - he will have to use its own long > arm and ex parte powers to survive any US outrage. Joli programme. > > > > > > Le 13 nov. 2014 à 15:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > > Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte > powers > > > > The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some > Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a > decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of > those drugs, and the firm sued. > > > > The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as > diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. > > On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: > > > >> > >> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this > way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global > resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates > that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's > people's will. Is this appropriate? > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > >>> > >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Nov 13 12:01:36 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:01:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <149a9f70aa0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a9f70aa0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Of course, as everybody knows, the French did their Revolution in the US, but had no idea what a vote was all about. How many participants ICANN needs to get into that new temple of MS? WK, who certainly knows better than the French according to you, what are vote and democracy, should have thought about the fact that ICANN was already represented (with no vote of course). Regarding the election process you are referring to, could you please elaborate and provide more details about this vote. You know, the French... even the ones living in Switzerland, the land of direct democracy... Le 13 nov. 2014 à 17:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > He indicated that he would stand for election, a concept that might not be unknown in France. > > On November 13, 2014 9:46:30 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Who did, not so long ago, expressed concerns about silly comments? - Remember my comment about the fact that WK - an ICANN member - self-nominated himself to represent European civil society at the "NMI" where ICANN, the WEF and CGI.br have already attributed themselves seats? >> >> Suresh, on this one you deserve a palm! Congrats. All countries have long arms and ex parte powers, so let's the US use its owns over the planet and every citizen whatever its citizenry is - he will have to use its own long arm and ex parte powers to survive any US outrage. Joli programme. >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 13 nov. 2014 à 15:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> >>> Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte powers >>> >>> The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of those drugs, and the firm sued. >>> >>> The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. >>> On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> McTim >>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 14:22:17 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:22:17 -0600 Subject: [governance] 2015 MAG Message-ID: Many thanks to outgoing CS MAG members. The first MAG meeting in December will be very important for the new CS members of the MAG. As an incoming MAG member I hope you will all be vocal in letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your input and expertise. I hope to be active in remote participation, and hope many of those who cannot be at the meetings will join online to make sure we raise the appropriate CS issues. I look forward to the challenge and the opportunity. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD * ** * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 14 03:53:21 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:53:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] 2015 MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1415955201.81541.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 03:54:06 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:54:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Hi Adding the governance list. To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s praetorian guard. https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: Improvements should include inter-alia: 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. 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. Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into discussion more developing country government participants. However it will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this would require coordination. I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as the CSTD intersessional http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these important meetings. http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table Best Bill PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > Application deadline approaching: Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 14 04:28:32 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:28:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1415957312.17759.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Fri Nov 14 04:33:50 2014 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:33:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2015 Message-ID: <004e01cfffee$1a2d27e0$4e8777a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> *We apologise for cross posting* If you haven't received the last EuroDIG info letter please subscribe to our mailing list and visit the new EuroDIG website cid:4D7E4731.09B495E6.00000002 Information letter No. 7/14 1. Call for proposals now open With some delay the call for proposals is now open and is a core element of EuroDIG's inclusiveness and bottom-up process. Everybody is invited to submit proposals on topics and issues to contribute to EuroDIG's 2015 agenda setting until 31st of December this year. Please use the online submission form available at www.eurodig.org. The EuroDIG core team is always seeking to improve and simplify participation at EuroDIG. After evaluating our previous events, the clustering of themes in our previous compilation of proposals has always been a challenge. The core team decided to try a slightly different approach for this year: In addition to freely propose any topic that you would like to see discussed, you can also propose a topic that might fit in one of the key topics we propose to you. We hope that this new approach might facilitate the task of the programme team to better structure the incoming proposals into a programme schedule. Suggested key topics: 1. Accessibility (Equality / Digital divide) 2. Internationalised Domain Names 3. Human Rights 4. Security 5. Innovation and economy development 6. Other According to discussions in the core team, these key topics may reflect some of the specific challenges and areas of interest to stakeholders also in South-Eastern European countries. 2. New website We start the 2015 EuroDIG process with a new website. Our aim is to provide clear guidance through the EuroDIG participation process and allow everybody to get involved at any time. The website is work in progress. We are still working on some modules and this process will be finalised by the end of the year. Let us know how you like it! 3. Save the date -Public planning meeting on 27 January 2015 in Sofia It is a tradition that the broader European community meets the local community of the host country at the beginning of each year, agrees on the overarching theme and set the scene for the EuroDIG programme of the upcoming year. You can participate personally or remotely. Precise meeting details and agenda will be published timely on the website. 4. South Eastern European round table We would like to take the next EuroDIG in Bulgaria as an opportunity to better involve participants from South Eastern European countries and are planning a roundtable discussion the day before EuroDIG on 3 June 2015. Please fix the date in your calendar and let us know whether you like to contribute to this event. Of course, such a round table needs a significant number of stakeholders from these regions and we are trying hard to raise travel funds. Please contact the EuroDIG secretariat if you see opportunities to raise travel funds. Thanks for your ideas and precious contributions! The EuroDIG team Unsubscribe from the news letter here _____ European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) office at eurodig.org www.eurodig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 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 Fri Nov 14 05:49:52 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:49:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> Very good idea to have a meeting Bill. I have responded to your Doodle poll. Also copying Aida Mahmutovic from One World South East Europe and John Dada from Fantsuam Foundation and Jac sm Kee who are also new on the MAG. Anriette On 14/11/2014 10:54, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and > MAG meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle > the ITU’s praetorian guard. > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members > get together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state > of play in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has > often been difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to > strategically collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot > efforts here. This would be particularly important with respect to > this meeting, which should significantly impact whether the IGF takes > seriously the NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: > > /Improvements should include inter-alia: > 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. > 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./ > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with > the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to > push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to > draw back into discussion more developing country government > participants. However it will not be easy as there are well organized > forces who’d oppose any changes that make the IGF more than a talk > shop, and the chair is, to put it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the > current draft agenda for the MAG meeting relegates intersessional work > and improved outcomes to being just one of four topics covered in a > three hour session, not a promising start. I noted that would not be > enough time, and received the zen response that we have the time we > have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to > push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this > would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 > issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. > Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open > MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether > we might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > >> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in >> letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in >> particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. >> I/we count on your input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a >> hangout or other meeting to discuss priorities and strategies before >> the December open consultations and MAG meeting. >> Cheers, >> Ginger >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> /Application deadline approaching: / Master/PGD in Contemporary >> Diplomacy with Internet Governance option >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD >> >> //// >> >> *//* > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 06:21:28 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:21:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> Message-ID: dear friends i might be geneva @UNCTAD at that time any possibility i can attend the meeting of the wsis Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 14 November 2014 13:49, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Very good idea to have a meeting Bill. I have responded to your Doodle > poll. > > Also copying Aida Mahmutovic from One World South East Europe and John > Dada from Fantsuam Foundation and Jac sm Kee who are also new on the MAG. > > Anriette > > On 14/11/2014 10:54, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s > praetorian guard. > > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get > together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play > in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been > difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically > collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would > be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should > significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate > with regard to strengthening the process: > > > > > > > *Improvements should include inter-alia: 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. > 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.* > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the > NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make > the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into > discussion more developing country government participants. However it > will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any > changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put > it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG > meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just > one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. > I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that > we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if > CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, > this would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues > the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 > Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we > might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting > me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular > for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your > input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting > to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations > and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * * > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 14 07:58:04 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:58:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: hello all, The information given by William were interesting and edifying. In my opinion, it is necessary that both the regional and global IGF national level, continental must include in their programs of activities a specific section on preparations for the IGF next year. This implies that each nationality IGF, regional and continental a rapid assessment is made to gather the concerns of all stakeholders in the form of recommendations. I think at the stage where we are, it would make sense that we resume the form of the preparatory meetings and improve the formula REFERRING to the following: *a. Improved results: Improvements can be implemented, including creative ways to deliver results / recommendations and analysis of policy options; b. Extending the mandate of the IGF beyond the five-year terms; c. Ensure a stable and predictable funding guaranteed for the IGF, including through a broader base of donors, is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote exchanges between meetings worldwide through dialogue sessions.* NM has given a new impetus to the IGF but it also drew new perspectives on the issues and challenges not only Internet applications but also its use by users according to their area of responsibility. Do not lose sight of that with the exponential growth of digital technology which has the axis of rotation the "internet", new threats are emerging that the international community must take all responsibility. There are new powers have emerged and continue to emerge through the facilities offered by digital technology. Baudouin 2014-11-14 9:54 GMT+01:00 William Drake : > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the last > day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s > praetorian guard. > > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get > together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play > in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been > difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically > collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would > be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should > significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate > with regard to strengthening the process: > > > > > > > *Improvements should include inter-alia: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. > 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.* > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 before > interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the NM > statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make > the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into > discussion more developing country government participants. However it > will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any > changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put > it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG > meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just > one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. > I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that > we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if > CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, > this would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as the > CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues > the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 > Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we > might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting > me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular > for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your > input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting > to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations > and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * ** * > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 08:10:06 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:10:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] New MAG Message-ID: Congratulations to all the MAG members, both the newly elected and those who have been reappointed. All good wishes for a productive year. 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 08:59:21 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:59:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Fri Nov 14 09:14:56 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:14:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Am 14.11.2014 15:00 schrieb "Deirdre Williams" : > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Nov 14 09:35:15 2014 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:35:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: @DeidreI agree with you. I was there when this appeal was made by Judy and realized it is very easy to be ignorant of this stakeholder group. So yes, we need a dedicated voice from them. From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:59:21 -0400 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake".Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups.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 sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Fri Nov 14 09:58:50 2014 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:58:50 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2015 In-Reply-To: <004e01cfffee$1a2d27e0$4e8777a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> References: <004e01cfffee$1a2d27e0$4e8777a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Message-ID: <00a201d0001b$8036dae0$80a490a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> ..and of course the subject line should read: EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2014 (not 2015) Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von sandra hoferichter Gesendet: Freitag, 14. November 2014 10:34 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2015 *We apologise for cross posting* If you haven't received the last EuroDIG info letter please subscribe to our mailing list and visit the new EuroDIG website cid:4D7E4731.09B495E6.00000002 Information letter No. 7/14 1. Call for proposals now open With some delay the call for proposals is now open and is a core element of EuroDIG's inclusiveness and bottom-up process. Everybody is invited to submit proposals on topics and issues to contribute to EuroDIG's 2015 agenda setting until 31st of December this year. Please use the online submission form available at www.eurodig.org. The EuroDIG core team is always seeking to improve and simplify participation at EuroDIG. After evaluating our previous events, the clustering of themes in our previous compilation of proposals has always been a challenge. The core team decided to try a slightly different approach for this year: In addition to freely propose any topic that you would like to see discussed, you can also propose a topic that might fit in one of the key topics we propose to you. We hope that this new approach might facilitate the task of the programme team to better structure the incoming proposals into a programme schedule. Suggested key topics: 1. Accessibility (Equality / Digital divide) 2. Internationalised Domain Names 3. Human Rights 4. Security 5. Innovation and economy development 6. Other According to discussions in the core team, these key topics may reflect some of the specific challenges and areas of interest to stakeholders also in South-Eastern European countries. 2. New website We start the 2015 EuroDIG process with a new website. Our aim is to provide clear guidance through the EuroDIG participation process and allow everybody to get involved at any time. The website is work in progress. We are still working on some modules and this process will be finalised by the end of the year. Let us know how you like it! 3. Save the date -Public planning meeting on 27 January 2015 in Sofia It is a tradition that the broader European community meets the local community of the host country at the beginning of each year, agrees on the overarching theme and set the scene for the EuroDIG programme of the upcoming year. You can participate personally or remotely. Precise meeting details and agenda will be published timely on the website. 4. South Eastern European round table We would like to take the next EuroDIG in Bulgaria as an opportunity to better involve participants from South Eastern European countries and are planning a roundtable discussion the day before EuroDIG on 3 June 2015. Please fix the date in your calendar and let us know whether you like to contribute to this event. Of course, such a round table needs a significant number of stakeholders from these regions and we are trying hard to raise travel funds. Please contact the EuroDIG secretariat if you see opportunities to raise travel funds. Thanks for your ideas and precious contributions! The EuroDIG team Unsubscribe from the news letter here _____ European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) office at eurodig.org www.eurodig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 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 mshears at cdt.org Fri Nov 14 10:14:11 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:14:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Bill Great idea thanks! For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best coordinate our interests. Matthew On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and > MAG meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle > the ITU’s praetorian guard. > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members > get together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state > of play in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has > often been difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to > strategically collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot > efforts here. This would be particularly important with respect to > this meeting, which should significantly impact whether the IGF takes > seriously the NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: > > /Improvements should include inter-alia: > 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. > 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./ > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with > the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to > push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to > draw back into discussion more developing country government > participants. However it will not be easy as there are well organized > forces who’d oppose any changes that make the IGF more than a talk > shop, and the chair is, to put it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the > current draft agenda for the MAG meeting relegates intersessional work > and improved outcomes to being just one of four topics covered in a > three hour session, not a promising start. I noted that would not be > enough time, and received the zen response that we have the time we > have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to > push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this > would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 > issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. > Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open > MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether > we might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > >> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in >> letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in >> particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. >> I/we count on your input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a >> hangout or other meeting to discuss priorities and strategies before >> the December open consultations and MAG meeting. >> Cheers, >> Ginger >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> /Application deadline approaching: / Master/PGD in Contemporary >> Diplomacy with Internet Governance option >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD >> >> //// >> >> *//* > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 14 12:27:46 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:27:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1415986066.53649.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 14 13:05:32 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:05:32 -0600 Subject: [governance] Countdown to the Geneva Internet Conference Message-ID: Hi everyone... The Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) Geneva Internet Conference (GIC) is just a few days away (next week, 17-19 November). The message below includes the latest updates and the conference programme. Speakers include Mr Fadi Chehadé, CEO and President of ICANN, who will deliver the keynote address. The list of speakers is also available below, while full conference details are available at http://giplatform.org/gic Although time zones are always a challenge for those of us attending remotely, you might want to take a close look at the programme and choose a few sessions to join us. If you are in Geneva, plan to attend, and have not yet registered, please do so here . Remote participants are strongly encouraged to register. We will tweet using #IGeneva and #theGIP Cheers, Ginger Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . Dear colleagues, With only a few days left before the Geneva Internet Conference, let us get back with a few updates. If you have not registered yet, please do so at your earliest convenience at http://giplatform.org/gic On Monday 17 November from 14.00 to 17.00, we will be organising a *pre-conference workshop on Introduction to Internet governance*. If you are interested to participate, please contact Barbara Rosen Jacobson at barbarar at diplomacy.edu On the same day, join us for a* keynote reception speech by Mr Fadi Chehadé*, CEO and President of ICANN from 17.30. On Tuesday 18 November from 10:00 to 11:00, let us highlight the Forum on *One Internet – many policy angles* with Deputy Secretary-General of the ITU, Deputy Director-General of WIPO, Deputy Director-General of the WTO and Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. See the detailed programme below. *DAY ZERO – 17 November 2014* 14.00 ‒ 17.00 *Introduction to Internet governance* (pre-conference workshop) 17.30 ‒ 19.30 Keynote address by Fadi Chehadé, President and Chief Executive Officer, ICANN Inauguration of *Geneva Digital Landscape IG 360° *followed by* a reception* (WMO Attic) *DAY ONE – 18 November 2014* The Internet governance landscape 09.30 ‒ 10.00 *Welcome and opening remarks* Ruedi Noser, National Counselor, President of ICT Switzerland and the initiators of the Geneva Internet Platform Amb. Jürg Lauber, Head of Division, UN and International Organisations Division, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs 10.00 ‒ 11.00 *FORUM: One Internet – many policy angles* Malcolm Johnson, Deputy Secretary-General, ITU Christian Wichard, Deputy Director-General, Global Issues Sector, WIPO Yi Xiaozhun, Deputy Director General, WTO Flavia Pansieri, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR Preserving one Internet involves different policy processes. More than 50% of global Internet policy is discussed and decided on in Geneva: telecom infrastructure, human rights, e-commerce, digital intellectual property are just a few of the areas. This high-level panel will discuss different policy angles, and ways in which cross-cutting Internet policy can be developed. High officials from the ITU, the WTO, and WIPO will discuss potential synergies among their activities of the relevance for the Internet. 11.00 ‒ 11.30 *Coffee break and conference photo* 11.30 ‒ 13.00 *FORUM: Mapping the Internet governance landscape ‒ actors, processes, and issues* Moderator: Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation and GIP Louis Pouzin, expert in computer communications (one of the fathers of the Internet) William J. Drake, Visiting Professor, University of Zurich Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Member of the ICANN Board of Directors Khaled Fattal, Group Chairman, Multilingual Interne Group, London Internet governance is a highly complex policy space with hundreds of actors addressing more than 50 IG issues through more than 1000 mechanisms (conventions, standards,events, experts groups, etc.). The more Internet impacts all spheres of our life, the more complex and broader Internet governance will become. Very few actors, if any, have a full grasp of the complexity of IG. The risk of incomprehensible IG could lead towards the marginalisation of some actors and, ultimately, a risk for legitimacy of Internet governance. In addition, good mapping of Internet governance will increase the efficiency of policy processes and reduce duplicate efforts in various forums. The session will discuss the challenge of mapping Internet governance and ways and means of making it more accessible to all concerned. The panellists will address the following issues: - What does Internet governance include? - What are the criteria for mapping Internet governance issues and their relevance? - How can we create easier access to Internet governance? - If a one-stop shop is a solution, what functions should it have and how should it be organised? A discussion thread from this session will continue at: - Session ‘Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection’ (18 November 2014: 14.30–16.00) - Forum: How do actors deal with the complexity of Internet governance? (19 November 2014: 09.00–10.30) 13.00 ‒ 14.30 *Lunch break* 14.30 ‒ 16.00 *Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection* Moderator: Vladimir Radunovic, DiploFoundation and GIP Brian Trammell, Internet Engineering TaskForce (IETF) Nick Ashton-Hart, Computer and Communications Industry Association Amb. Thomas Hajnoczi, Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations, Geneva Carly Nyst, Privacy International The omnipresence of the Internet in modern society makes most Internet policy issues transversal. For example, cybercrime cannot be addressed only as a security issue or e-commerce only as trade issue. Yet, a transversal approach is more an exception than a common practice in Internet governance. This session will discuss ways and means of introducing a transversal approach using the example of data protection and privacy, addressed from standardisation, human rights, diplomatic, security, and business perspectives. 14.30 ‒ 16.00 *Legal framework, jurisdiction, and enforcement in Internet governance* Moderator: Prof. Jacques de Werra, University of Geneva Prof. Rolf Weber, University of Zurich Prof. Joe Cannataci, University of Groningen Dr Mira Burri, Senior Research Fellow, World Trade Institute, University of Bern Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society Xianhong Hu, UNESCO The Internet does not function in a legal vacuum. Increasingly, it is perceived that what is (il)legal offline is (il)legal online. The UN Human Rights Council made this principle explicit: ‘The same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.’ Thus, most Internet issues are already regulated in the offline environment (e.g. jurisdiction, copyright, trademark, labour law).The main challenge is how to apply these rules to Internet transactions, particularly in view of transborder aspects and the speed of Internet activities. At the preparatory seminar for the Conference, the idea of legal innovation with wisdom was suggested. It means that there is a need for innovation for the Internet, which should not ignore the wisdom of the legal profession gathered over centuries in regulating conflicts and ensuring order in human society. The session will focus on the following questions: - Is there any area where the ‘offline/online principle’ cannot be applied and there will be a need for new substantive rules for the Internet? - What are the specific challenges for applying existing legal rules on the Internet? - How do we innovate with wisdom? What are the possible innovations? 14.30 ‒ 16.00 *Inclusion in digital policy: e-participation and capacity development* Moderator: Pete Cranston, co-director, Euforic Services, Oxford Chengetai Masango, Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum Ginger Paque, DiploFoundation Anders Norsker, ITU (tbc) Marília Maciel, Center for Technology and Society, FGV Brazil Anne-Rachel Inne, ICANN Inclusive digital policy depends on e-participation and capacity development. E-participation ensures participation of all those who cannot participate in situ. It is not surprising that e-participation in global governance is most advanced in the field of Internet governance. The session will discuss the four most relevant experiences in digital policy: the IGF, ICANN, the ITU, and NETmundial. The session will provide concrete input based on the following questions: - What practical techniques are there for making e-participation more effective? - How can we ensure proper synchronisation between two dynamics of the event: in situ (in the conference room) and remote (via e-participation)? - How do we deal with different time-zones in e-participation? - How do we ensure capacity development for e-participation? 16.00 ‒ 16.30 *Coffee break* 16.30 ‒ 17.30 *Wrap-up and discussion (feedback and synthesis of ideas)* 19.00 ‒ 20.30 *Cocktail dînatoire (Maison de la Paix, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2)* *DAY TWO – 19 November 2014* The complexity of Internet governance: sustaining innovation while ensuring equality 09.00 ‒ 10.30 *FORUM: How do nations cope with Internet governance complexity?* Hon. Helena Dalli, Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, Malta Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change, India Marília Maciel, Center for Technology and Society, FGV Brazil Richard Samans, Managing Director and Member of the Managing Board, World Economic Forum With more than 50 Internet policy issues addressed in hundreds of various forums, many actors face difficulties in following Internet governance. Some governments, such as China, the USA, and Germany, have introduced cyber and Internet ambassadors as a way of covering foreign digital policy. Many countries started a national Internet Governance Forum in order to integrate the wider technical, academic, and business communities in Internet policies. For business and technical communities, following IG requires covering non-technical issues such as human rights (e.g. privacy). For civil society, in particular small organisations, covering the IG field is becoming very difficult. At the same time, due to the inter-connection of IG issues, many actors cannot afford not to use a comprehensive approach including technical, legal, and human rights aspects among others. Panellists will present different experiences in covering Internet governance and suggest some practical solutions. The session is planned to end with a list of concrete suggestions that should help various actors to deal with the complexity of IG. 10.30 ‒ 11.00 *Coffee break* 11.00 ‒ 12.30 *Aim for full transparency – accept exceptional translucency* Moderator: Pete Cranston, co-director, Euforic Services, Oxford Veronica Cretu, Open Government Institute (Moldova) Nigel Hickson, Vice-President, ICANN Avri Doria, Principal Researcher, Technicalities Kari Tapiola, ILO Transparency is essential for robust and effective Internet governance. It is particularly important in multistakeholder spaces that typically do not have procedural mechanisms to ensure procedural transparency and due process. While full transparency should be a default operational mode, in some cases a ‘translucent’ approach could be considered (e.g. limited public participation in deliberation with full publicity of results of deliberations). This session will aim to establish criteria for determining the level of transparency needed (e.g. full transparency with transcription, access to documents, etc.). It will rely on experiences from the Open Governance and ILO communities. 11.00 ‒ 12.30 *Subsidiarity: how to make Internet governance decisions at the appropriate level, building on lessons learnt from Switzerland* Moderator: Thomas Schneider, OFCOM Peter Gruetter, Swiss Telecommunications Association Norbert Bollow, co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition Michel Veuthey, Vice-president of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo Hanane Boujemi, Hivos While global solutions are preferable for global issues (e.g. IG, climate change), they are often difficult to achieve. After the failure of the Copenhagen summit (2009), the climate change community focused more on local, national, and regional initiatives. The same tendencies are noticeable in IG (most cybercrime conventions are regional, protests against IG policies are regional/national – SOPA, ACTA). IG issues should be addressed at the policy level which is closest to the cause of the issues (e.g. cybercrime) or the impact a specific policy may have (e.g. access, net neutrality). The main challenges will be to ensure that ‘policy elevators’ move both ways (up and down) among local,national, regional, and global levels. The session will also discuss the practice of ‘forum shopping’ (inserting policy initiatives on the most favourable policy level). Swiss academics and practitioners will present the country’s long experience in using subsidiarity principles. The panel will address the following specific questions: - What issues could be addressed effectively at a lower level than a global one (e.g. regional and national levels)? - How can we ensure synchronisation among different policy levels while avoiding the risk of ‘forum shopping’? 11.00 ‒ 12.30 *Evidence in Internet governance: measurement and data-mining* Moderator: Vladimir Radunovic, DiploFoundation and GIP Aaron Boyd, Chief Strategy Officer, ABI Research Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Senior Economist, WIPO Eliot Lear, CISCO Kavé Salamatian, University of Savoie, France Although the Internet is an engineering artifact, we do not have sufficient technical data of relevance for Internet governance. For example, one of the major problems in cybersecurity is the lack of data about threats and losses. Policy-makers and, increasingly a more engaged general public, are looking for data such as: the impact of digital innovation on economic growth; the quantity of digital assets and their distribution worldwide, etc. The session will focus on three main issues: - Mapping of available data and measurement of relevance for IG - Survey of data and measurement for specific issues. - Techniques and approaches to improve evidence and measurement of relevance for IG. 12.30 ‒ 14.00 *Lunch break* 14.00 ‒ 15.30 *Lessons learned from other multistakeholder processes* Moderator: Anne-Marie Buzatu, DCAF Andy Orsmond, International Code of Conduct Association Michel Quillé, Europol Amb. Theodor H. Winkler, Director – DCAF Michele Woods, WIPO The different stakeholder communities remain divided over the legitimate carrying out and enforcement of decisions. Consequently, compliance remains a test case for IG processes. How can we ensure effective implementation and compliance of decisions, in particular those that require the participation of multiple actors with different views on legitimacy and accountability? 14.00 ‒ 15.30 *Drafting in policy processes: how can we best nurture the socialisation of policy texts in multistakeholder contexts?* Moderator: Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation and GIP Richard Hill, Association for Proper Internet Governance Avri Doria, Principal Researcher, Technicalities Alex Sceberras Trigona, Special Envoy of the Prime Minister of Malta and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta One of the fathers of the Internet Jon Postel said ‘Group discussion is very valuable; group drafting is less productive.’ The more people involved, the greater the complexity of the process. The drafting process is not individual writing; it is highly social. Thus, ‘socialisation of the text’ is essential for successful negotiations. All involved should be aware of how the final draft was negotiated, what was included, and what was left out. Participants should know that their voices were heard, considered, and adopted… or not, accordingly. The panellists will address the following questions: - How do we harvest and harness a wide range of inputs in the drafting process? - What types of procedures are needed to ensure that the drafted text can have legitimate acceptance by most actors involved in the process? - How do we deal with conflicting situations in the drafting process? 14.00 ‒ 15.30 *Funding, accountability and trust in Internet governance* Moderator: Pete Cranston, co-director, Euforic Services, Oxford Markus Kummer, Member of the ICANN Board of Directors Désirée Miloshevic, Afilias International Jean-Marie Chenou, University of Lausanne Funding, accountability, and trust are closely inter-related and are necessary for a legitimate governance system. Funding contributes to accountability, which in turn creates more trust in IG space. This session will address various approaches to fundraising in Internet governance. It will also discuss the question of accountability and trust. 15.30 ‒ 16.00 *Coffee break* 16.00 ‒ 17.00 *Closing session: wrap-up and concluding remarks* Philipp Metzger, Director-General, OFCOM Follow us on Twitter | Forward to a friend You're receiving this email because you expressed an interest in Geneva Internet Platform. [image: DiploFoundation] [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 14:29:26 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:29:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <1415986066.53649.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1415986066.53649.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My message was sent in response to a suggestion from Lorena to have a "youth category". What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities are expressed. For the last few years that mechanism was provided (apparently fortuitously) by the presence on the MAG of Judy Okite, (civil society/technical) who is herself disabled and therefore was unlikely to forget the concerns of people with disabilities. It would be good always to have someone on the MAG whose special responsibility was to act as a liaison for the billion people on the planet who live with disability, to remember and to voice their concerns. Deirdre On 14 November 2014 13:27, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > Hi Deidre, > > I agree with your point, having a separate 'stake' for people with > disabilities. However, you may need to make it clear wether you mean that > we should add a new category to the existing ones (Gov, CS, Business, etc)? > > My stake is that for this specific category, we just make sure they are > represented within the already existing categories. If not, we will face a > situation where we need to consider new categories in the future (youth, > students, children, etc) > > Regards, > A > ------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > ICANN Fellow| ISOC Member| Child Online Protection Advocate| Youth Leader| > Internet Governance. > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 14 nov. 2014 15:59:21, Deirdre Williams<'williams.deirdre at gmail.com'> > wrote: > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ekenyanito at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 15:07:08 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:07:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Message-ID: Looking forward to these discussions, please make arrangements for remote participation. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 On 14 November 2014 20:45, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I will be around on Friday but unfortunately not the previous days as I'll > be in Ottawa. > > Regards, Nick > > > On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:14, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Bill > > Great idea thanks! > > For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there > will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will > also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult > discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. > The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states > that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that > those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best > coordinate our interests. > > Matthew > > On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s > praetorian guard. > > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get > together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play > in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been > difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically > collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would > be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should > significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate > with regard to strengthening the process: > > > > > > > *Improvements should include inter-alia: 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. > 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.* > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the > NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make > the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into > discussion more developing country government participants. However it > will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any > changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put > it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG > meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just > one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. > I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that > we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if > CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, > this would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues > the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 > Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we > might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting > me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular > for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your > input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting > to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations > and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * * > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 compsoftnet at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 16:53:09 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:53:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 14 19:42:16 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:42:16 -0600 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: Judy has done a wonderful job in IG and on the MAG, and I am sure she will continue to help us address issues for persons with disabilities and other topics. The MAG does have another important advocate for persons with disabilities: Peter Major (DCAD Co-Coordinator, Special advisor, Hungarian Mission to the UN, Geneva). I am sure that he, Judy, and the other members of the DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), including De Williams and myself will continue to keep disability and inclusion issues high on the IGF agenda (think remote participation too). I am sure most of you are also familiar with the work of Andrea Saks as well--who is very active in IGF disability issues, with no need to be on the MAG to constantly push for change. While there is no doubt in my mind that disability issues are very important,I have to admit, I am not sure that more mechanisms are the answer. (' What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities are expressed.'). I think that the DCAD and the I *SOC* Disabilities and Special Needs *Chapter*, as well as other advocates, do an excellent job of addressing concerns, and that we can all learn from their very practical work--DCAD was instrumental in making transcripts a part of IGF meetings (which is an amazing tool for all of us), and is, for example, a strong support for remote participation, as there is great synergy in tools, resources and concerns about inclusion. I hope we can make sure that all voices are heard, including those of youth and persons with disabilities. It's amazing what we learn from each other, and how we all benefit in the end. Please do help me (as a new MAG member) and the MAG include your concerns in the IGF agendas. Don't forget that each of you can bring your positions directly to the IGF Secretariat through the contributions that are often requested (See* www.intgovforum.org/cms/ **Taking stock of IGF 2014 and looking forward to IGF 2015* -- Stakeholders were invited to submit written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The submitted contributions are available and will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December.) Cheers, Ginger On 14 November 2014 15:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for > disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the > internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was > raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they > really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can > stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. > On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 19:53:22 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:53:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: People with disability is an important part of the community.. Unfortunately they were not included in the MDGs and this why they have high level meetings in the 68th UN general assembly and our organization was part of it. in addition, most of the 17th suggested sustainable development are speaking about equality. By the time the MAG meetings starts in Geneva from the 1st to the 3rd December, the world will be celebrating the international day of people with disability (3rd December) http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1620 http://community.telecentre.org/photo/albums/high-level-meeting-on-disability-and-development Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 15 November 2014 00:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for > disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the > internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was > raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they > really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can > stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. > On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Fri Nov 14 23:20:25 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:20:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> It's profound. For many years, decades actually, we've had a customer who is both deaf and blind. Yet the internet makes the world (no pun intended) available to her. I remember once a support staff member (unwittingly) offered to call her about a question she'd asked and she responded please, don't call! Email only! Really, truly profound. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 01:02:36 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:02:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> References: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> Message-ID: We have experience in GDCO in training deaf. When we start training we finish the course in 6 months. Later we select three of them as trainer and we succeeded in training their friends in 20 days. They start to communicate through emails and video chatting instead of the sign language. We use those trained deaf to raise the awareness and easiness of the internet and they go to internet cafes to practice and this sent a message to the community that accessing the internet is not difficult the number of internet café increased from 5 to 15 in less than a year,,, they are really very smart. Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 15 November 2014 07:20, Barry Shein wrote: > > It's profound. For many years, decades actually, we've had a customer > who is both deaf and blind. Yet the internet makes the world (no pun > intended) available to her. I remember once a support staff member > (unwittingly) offered to call her about a question she'd asked and she > responded please, don't call! Email only! Really, truly profound. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, > Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 ahmed22digital at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 02:10:01 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:10:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> Message-ID: http://www.un.org/en/ga/68/meetings/disability/ Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 15 November 2014 09:02, ahmed eisa wrote: > We have experience in GDCO in training deaf. When we start training we > finish the course in 6 months. Later we select three of them as trainer and > we succeeded in training their friends in 20 days. They start to > communicate through emails and video chatting instead of the sign language. > We use those trained deaf to raise the awareness and easiness of the > internet and they go to internet cafes to practice and this sent a message > to the community that accessing the internet is not difficult the number of > internet café increased from 5 to 15 in less than a year,,, they are really > very smart. > > Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa > +249123031155 Sudani > > +249912331155 Zain > > +249999331155 MTN > KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 > > post code 12217 > > > http://www.gedaref.com/ > > > Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and > nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres > movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner > of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the > inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the > best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 > for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project > and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the > winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in > Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the > founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the > thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the > founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 > computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for > community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG > (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new > partnership for community development including people with disability > (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, > SeVO and other project > > > > On 15 November 2014 07:20, Barry Shein wrote: > >> >> It's profound. For many years, decades actually, we've had a customer >> who is both deaf and blind. Yet the internet makes the world (no pun >> intended) available to her. I remember once a support staff member >> (unwittingly) offered to call her about a question she'd asked and she >> responded please, don't call! Email only! Really, truly profound. >> >> -- >> -Barry Shein >> >> The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | >> http://www.TheWorld.com >> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, >> Canada >> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Nov 16 20:04:21 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:04:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oops! I should have been more careful to remind people that the context of this thread was the MAG. The "mechanism" referred to a means of including a voice for people with disabilities as a permanent component of the MAG and wasn't intended in any way to question the value of the great work that is being done by DCAD. Deirdre Judy has done a wonderful job in IG and on the MAG, and I am sure she will continue to help us address issues for persons with disabilities and other topics. The MAG does have another important advocate for persons with disabilities: Peter Major (DCAD Co-Coordinator, Special advisor, Hungarian Mission to the UN, Geneva). I am sure that he, Judy, and the other members of the DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), including De Williams and myself will continue to keep disability and inclusion issues high on the IGF agenda (think remote participation too). I am sure most of you are also familiar with the work of Andrea Saks as well--who is very active in IGF disability issues, with no need to be on the MAG to constantly push for change. While there is no doubt in my mind that disability issues are very important,I have to admit, I am not sure that more mechanisms are the answer. (' What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities are expressed.'). I think that the DCAD and the I *SOC* Disabilities and Special Needs *Chapter*, as well as other advocates, do an excellent job of addressing concerns, and that we can all learn from their very practical work--DCAD was instrumental in making transcripts a part of IGF meetings (which is an amazing tool for all of us), and is, for example, a strong support for remote participation, as there is great synergy in tools, resources and concerns about inclusion. I hope we can make sure that all voices are heard, including those of youth and persons with disabilities. It's amazing what we learn from each other, and how we all benefit in the end. Please do help me (as a new MAG member) and the MAG include your concerns in the IGF agendas. Don't forget that each of you can bring your positions directly to the IGF Secretariat through the contributions that are often requested (See* www.intgovforum.org/cms/ **Taking stock of IGF 2014 and looking forward to IGF 2015* -- Stakeholders were invited to submit written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The submitted contributions are available and will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December.) Cheers, Ginger On 14 November 2014 15:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for > disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the > internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was > raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they > really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can > stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. > On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 16 23:04:30 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:04:30 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative Message-ID: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative Big development... will be interesting to see responses From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative A must read djf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bob Hinden" Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" Cc: Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 minutes or so. Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! Thanks, Bob _______________________________________________ ISOC-trustees mailing list ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141116-ISOC-BOT-NMI-Statement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 149690 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Nov 16 23:53:47 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:23:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ireland's low tax draws ire Message-ID: <54697F5B.9020701@ITforChange.net> "....The Irish government agreed in October to phase out a widely used tax loophole known as the “double Irish” that experts say has saved significant money for companies like Google and Microsoft. Policymakers in the United States and the European Union also are taking an increasingly tough stance toward countries like Ireland and Luxembourg, whose low corporate tax rates and complicated tax rules have enticed international companies like Amazon, Apple and Intel to locate their global operations there. ..... read more on http://www.deccanherald.com/content/442002/irelands-low-tax-draws-ire.html Fair global taxation regime is a critical IG issue.... and such a regime will have a salutary effect on the huge power US based transnational corporations have and (ab)use, apart from providing much needed funding for building infrastructure, enabling democratic IG and other needed items Guru -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 00:53:45 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:53:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Society Statement on the NETmundial Initiative Message-ID: For some background on this read Kieren McCarthy and Philip Corwin . joly posted: " Yesterday, November 16 2014. following it's meeting in Honolulu, the Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following statement: Recently, the “I* Group” different from the one-time NETmundial meeting in which we participated in April 2014; we e" [image: Internet Society] Yesterday, November 16 2014. following its meeting in Honolulu, the Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following statement : Recently, the “I* Group” [1] was invited to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, which is different from the one-time NETmundial meeting in which we participated in April 2014; we endorsed the outcomes of that meeting. This new and different NETmundial Initiative has been organized by the partnership of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF)[2]. This announcement has resulted in considerable discussion and concern amongst various stakeholders regarding the purpose, scope, and nature of the proposed activity or organization. The Internet Society Board discussed this proposed NETmundial Initiative in depth during its meeting November 15 – 16, 2014. As a result, the Internet Society Board first emphasizes that the main priority facing the Internet community right now is the IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition and recommends that all organizations in the Internet community should be highly focused on effectuating a successful transition. The Internet Society remains fully committed to the September 2015 milestone set for completing a plan that will meet the criteria set by U.S. National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA). With respect to the need for new groups, such as the NETmundial Initiative and its Coordination Council, the Internet Society Board reiterates that the Internet Society’s longstanding position is that there is no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues that may arise. At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, loosely coupled, distributed system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The ecosystem draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy.[3] Based on the information that we have to date, the Internet Society cannot agree to participate in or endorse the Coordination Council for the NETmundial Initiative. We are concerned that the way in which the NETmundial Initiative is being formed does not appear to be consistent with the Internet Society’s longstanding principles, including: • Bottom-up orientation • Decentralized • Open • Transparent • Accountable • Multi-stakeholder The Board has asked the Internet Society’s CEO, Kathryn Brown, to convene a dialogue within the Internet Society community. This includes Internet Society Chapters from around the world, Internet Society organization members, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), partners from the Internet technical community, and others. The dialogue should consider whether any new initiatives or groups are needed at the current time and, if so, to define the objectives for any such effort. In addition, Bob Hinden, Chairman of the Internet Society Board of Trustees has initiated a dialogue with the Chairman of the ICANN Board, given ICANN’s leading involvement in the NETmundial Initiative. The Internet Society remains committed to a vision of the Internet that is open, inclusive, decentralized and for the benefit of all people throughout the world. Notes: [1] The I* Group encompasses the Internet Society, IETF, IAB, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), ICANN, and the regional Top Level Domain (TLD) organizations. [2] https://www.netmundial.org/press-release-1 [3] The Internet Society’s position from the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) of 2003 and 2005, is “Many issues cannot be solved by new, overarching structures at a global level but rather by building on today’s open, multi-stakeholder and cooperative processes.” And that the community should “...consider whether new structures will bring truly measurable, positive change to the functioning, stability, security and openness of the Internet.” (http://www.internetsociety.org/wsis). Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7205 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Nov 17 02:47:01 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:47:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. jeanette Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: > Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative > Big development... will be interesting to see responses > *From:* Dave Farber via ip > *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > > A must read djf > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Hinden" > > Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > Cc: > > Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 > minutes or so. > > Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. > > Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! > > Thanks, > Bob > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ISOC-trustees mailing list > ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > > Archives > | > Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > [Powered by Listbox] > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 03:18:29 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:18:29 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Hi Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise. At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people. I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed. What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful. The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either. I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed. In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like. Best Bill > On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. > jeanette > > Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> Cc: >> >> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >> minutes or so. >> >> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >> >> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-trustees mailing list >> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 03:23:40 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:23:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agree with Bill on two points. Ambiguities, lack of clarity... But one question though: Bill, do you suggest that networks should participate in order for the organizers not to be free to compose the CC however they like? Is that the argument to join? Best, JC Le 17 nov. 2014 à 09:18, William Drake a écrit : > Hi > > Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise. At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people. I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed. > > What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful. The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either. I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed. > > In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like. > > Best > > Bill > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >>> minutes or so. >>> >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >>> >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 05:44:55 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:44:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Inclusion as mentioned by Ginger and Deirde should be very useful for MAG community. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Oops! I should have been more careful to remind people that the context of > this thread was the MAG. The "mechanism" referred to a means of including a > voice for people with disabilities as a permanent component of the MAG and > wasn't intended in any way to question the value of the great work that is > being done by DCAD. > > Deirdre > Judy has done a wonderful job in IG and on the MAG, and I am sure she will > continue to help us address issues for persons with disabilities and other > topics. The MAG does have another important advocate for persons with > disabilities: Peter Major (DCAD Co-Coordinator, Special advisor, Hungarian > Mission to the UN, Geneva). I am sure that he, Judy, and the other members > of the DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), including > De Williams and myself will continue to keep disability and inclusion > issues high on the IGF agenda (think remote participation too). I am sure > most of you are also familiar with the work of Andrea Saks as well--who is > very active in IGF disability issues, with no need to be on the MAG to > constantly push for change. > > While there is no doubt in my mind that disability issues are very > important,I have to admit, I am not sure that more mechanisms are the > answer. (' What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of > people with disabilities are expressed.'). I think that the DCAD and the I > *SOC* Disabilities and Special Needs *Chapter*, as well as other > advocates, do an excellent job of addressing concerns, and that we can all > learn from their very practical work--DCAD was instrumental in making > transcripts a part of IGF meetings (which is an amazing tool for all of > us), and is, for example, a strong support for remote participation, as > there is great synergy in tools, resources and concerns about inclusion. > > I hope we can make sure that all voices are heard, including those of > youth and persons with disabilities. It's amazing what we learn from each > other, and how we all benefit in the end. > > Please do help me (as a new MAG member) and the MAG include your concerns > in the IGF agendas. Don't forget that each of you can bring your positions > directly to the IGF Secretariat through the contributions that are often > requested (See* www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > **Taking stock of IGF 2014 and looking > forward to IGF 2015* -- Stakeholders were invited to submit written > contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward > to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and > themes. The submitted contributions > are > available and will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into > the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December.) > > Cheers, > Ginger > > > > On 14 November 2014 15:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo > wrote: > >> That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for >> disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the >> internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was >> raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they >> really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can >> stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. >> On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" >> wrote: >> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 07:27:08 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:27:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6BA1286F-33AF-4BDA-9FAC-836826C63255@gmail.com> > On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > But one question though: Bill, do you suggest that networks should participate in order for the organizers not to be free to compose the CC however they like? Is that the argument to join? That’s ‘an' argument to join, whether it’s a sufficient ‘the’ is in the eye of the beholder. If one doesn’t care about having a platform where project proponents can find the kind of partners this might make available, or even thinks it’s a bad idea, then how the CC is composed is presumably irrelevant. I’d think people should only labor to agree on nominees if they believe the whole concept may be worth trying. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 07:44:22 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:44:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG process. Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer forget. Nice day all. Remmy Nweke @ITRealms A member of DigitalSENSE Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------ From: Deirdre Williams Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 17 07:54:39 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:54:39 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca> Very good point, Jean! frt rgds --c.a. On 11/17/2014 05:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding > an Internet Governance Forum. > jeanette > > Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial >> Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> Cc: >> >> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >> minutes or so. >> >> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >> >> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-trustees mailing list >> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 judyokite at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 10:07:25 2014 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:07:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thank you All, for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? De, whats your thought? Kind Regards, *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. > Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are > reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May > be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG > process. > Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer > forget. > Nice day all. > Remmy Nweke > @ITRealms > A member of DigitalSENSE > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > From: Deirdre Williams > Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 > To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] People with disabilities > > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judith at jhellerstein.com Mon Nov 17 10:48:17 2014 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:48:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <546A18C1.1060003@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 10:55:09 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:55:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: My guess is more elements need to be more transparent before ISOC will engage in quite the way other international advocates are eager to. A lot is being pushed the rest of this year and next, and those things need to get more explicit rather than indirect as far as the underlying foundations. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Very good point, Jean! > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 11/17/2014 05:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding >> an Internet Governance Forum. >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial >>> Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >>> minutes or so. >>> >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >>> >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 11:16:38 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:16:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <546A18C1.1060003@jhellerstein.com> References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> <546A18C1.1060003@jhellerstein.com> Message-ID: Hey Judy, +1, totally in support. It is an issue that need serious attention On Nov 17, 2014 4:49 PM, "Judith Hellerstein" wrote: > Hi Judy, > > I think this is an excellent idea. I support this > > Best, > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > On 11/17/2014, 10:07 AM, Judy Okite wrote: > > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised > in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them > involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to > have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >> process. >> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >> forget. >> Nice day all. >> Remmy Nweke >> @ITRealms >> A member of DigitalSENSE >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ------------------------------ >> From: Deirdre Williams >> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >> To: Internet Governance >> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >> >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 12:09:47 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:09:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: My thought is "go for it". However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" precedent? On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised in > these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them > involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to have > this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >> process. >> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >> forget. >> Nice day all. >> Remmy Nweke >> @ITRealms >> A member of DigitalSENSE >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ------------------------------ >> From: Deirdre Williams >> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >> To: Internet Governance >> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >> >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 12:20:22 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:20:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] NMI: The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance Message-ID: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill> As many of you will be aware, JNC has been opposed a couple of months ago to the first shape in which the “NetMundial Initiative” (NMI) had been announced. NMI has now be redesigned in some ways, and WEF is now a bit less in the foreground, but the underlying ideology is still the same. For this reason, JNC is still opposed. For a more detailed explanation see “The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance” at http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 12:32:48 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:32:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, So far your submissions have been engaging and interesting, but I did not understand the aspect of "dangerous" precedent. Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities in the MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in the future? If yes, why? We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on merit, of course, I think this subject herein is merited. However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask further questions. Thanks Remmy On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > My thought is "go for it". > However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with > disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I > spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. > This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise > the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened > fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are > other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an > "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade > the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" > precedent? > > On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: > >> Thank you All, >> >> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >> >> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >> >> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >> >> De, whats your thought? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>> process. >>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>> forget. >>> Nice day all. >>> Remmy Nweke >>> @ITRealms >>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Deirdre Williams >>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>> To: Internet Governance >>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > > > -- > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 17 12:46:17 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:46:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance Message-ID: Just starting. Another top flight event from ISOC-DC. joly posted: " Today, Monday 17 November 2014 the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the Institute of International Economic Policy (IIEP) present Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance . This free luncheon seminar consid" [image: ISOC DC Human Rights in IG] Today,* Monday 17 November 2014* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society * (ISOC-DC) and the *Institute of International Economic Policy *(IIEP) present *Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance *. This free luncheon seminar considers how recent proposed changes in Internet governance will affect human rights online and how Internet governance institutions and processes might be made more accountable to netizens. Panel: Ambassador *David Gross*, Wiley Rein; *Danielle Kehl*, Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation; *Manu Bhardwaj*, United States Department of State; *Robert Guerra*, Founder & Executive Director, Privaterra; Member, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC); *Andrea Glorioso*, European Union Delegation to the United States. Moderator: *Susan Ariel Aaronson*, Research Professor of International Affairs, The George Washington University. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream * channel. *What: Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance Where: Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington DC When: Monday 17 November 2014 12-30pm-2pm EST | 17:30-19:00 UTC Webcast: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/humanrights Twitter: @isocdc + #humanrights * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7212 -------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 12:49:42 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:49:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Bad choice of words perhaps :-( The concerns I have heard seem to focus on the possibility that if one group is given special status as regards representation then several other groups may ask for the same facility. If you look back in this thread Arsene on 14th was the first person to express this concern. I think I used "dangerous" (and please note the "...") because the stability of the MAG is very important. Therefore it is essential that the justification for the request should be quite clear and offer no threat to that stability. On 17 November 2014 13:32, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Dear Deirdre, > So far your submissions have been engaging and interesting, but I did not > understand the aspect of "dangerous" precedent. > > Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities in the > MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in the future? If > yes, why? > > We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on merit, > of course, I think this subject herein is merited. > > However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask > further questions. > Thanks > Remmy > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> My thought is "go for it". >> However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with >> disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I >> spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. >> This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise >> the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened >> fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are >> other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an >> "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade >> the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" >> precedent? >> >> On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: >> >>> Thank you All, >>> >>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>> >>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>> >>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>> >>> De, whats your thought? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>> >>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>> process. >>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>>> forget. >>>> Nice day all. >>>> Remmy Nweke >>>> @ITRealms >>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>> >>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>> To: Internet Governance >>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>> >>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > > -- > ____ > REMMY NWEKE, > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; > ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet > (Multiple-award winning medium) > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza > Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, > T: @ITRealms > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < > http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the > intended > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > -- “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 wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 13:13:23 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:13:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, and then loved it to death. BD > On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. > jeanette > > Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> Cc: >> >> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >> minutes or so. >> >> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >> >> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-trustees mailing list >> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 remmyn at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 13:32:11 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:32:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thanks Deirdre for the explanation, However, no matter what other opinion, we must be conscious of the moment and relate it to the reality of things. I am convinced that Arsene "alert" is not unfounded but a note for careful decision making, so no threat meant as far as I can deduce. Therefore, I would like to submit that there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong in us advocating inclusion of disability colleagues in the MAG in real sense of it, after all we say its a multi-stakeholder, yet the question here remain whether we have made the multi-stakeholderism a reality or are we still guessing with semantics? Posterity will be on our side for seeing enough reasons to accommodate this request, after all, for instance, those of us who have worked closely with Judy Okite, know her capability when it comes to work despite all odds. I am sure those Ginger Prague mentioned earlier have been as hardworking as Judy among our pears for them to merit such mentions and recognition. So, our decision must reflect the reality of things with purpose driven. If there are other request for inclusion as feared by Arsene, then when we get to the bridge, let us cross it, but for now. This is proposal is imperative. Goodevening from Lagos Remmy On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Bad choice of words perhaps :-( > The concerns I have heard seem to focus on the possibility that if one > group is given special status as regards representation then several other > groups may ask for the same facility. If you look back in this thread > Arsene on 14th was the first person to express this concern. > I think I used "dangerous" (and please note the "...") because the > stability of the MAG is very important. Therefore it is essential that the > justification for the request should be quite clear and offer no threat to > that stability. > > On 17 November 2014 13:32, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Dear Deirdre, >> So far your submissions have been engaging and interesting, but I did not >> understand the aspect of "dangerous" precedent. >> >> Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities in >> the MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in the future? >> If yes, why? >> >> We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on >> merit, of course, I think this subject herein is merited. >> >> However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask >> further questions. >> Thanks >> Remmy >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> My thought is "go for it". >>> However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with >>> disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I >>> spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. >>> This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise >>> the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened >>> fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are >>> other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an >>> "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade >>> the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" >>> precedent? >>> >>> On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you All, >>>> >>>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>>> >>>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>>> >>>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>>> >>>> De, whats your thought? >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>>> process. >>>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no >>>>> longer forget. >>>>> Nice day all. >>>>> Remmy Nweke >>>>> @ITRealms >>>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>>> To: Internet Governance >>>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>>> >>>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____ >> REMMY NWEKE, >> Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >> DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd >> (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; >> ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet >> (Multiple-award winning medium) >> Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd >> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza >> Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos >> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, >> T: @ITRealms >> [Member, NIRA Executive Board] >> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >> >> NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < >> http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 >> Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 >> @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >> attachments >> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended >> only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept >> legal >> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the >> intended >> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do >> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make >> any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >> > > > > -- > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 17 13:41:13 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:41:13 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> Message-ID: <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> Basically yes, Bill. --c.a. On 11/17/2014 04:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, and then loved it to death. > > BD > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >>> minutes or so. >>> >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >>> >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 13:47:39 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:47:39 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I was part of the ISOC delegation at the time and I don't recall it being perceived as a threat per se, just not strictly needed. Maybe Avri has a different recollection. I do recall that they got us all together and asked us our opinion. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Basically yes, Bill. > > --c.a. > > On 11/17/2014 04:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, > and then loved it to death. > > > > BD > > > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> > >> > >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of > founding an Internet Governance Forum. > >> jeanette > >> > >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: > >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI > initiative > >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses > >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > >>> *To:* ip > >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > >>> > >>> A must read djf > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: "Bob Hinden" >> > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial > Initiative > >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >>> > > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 > >>> minutes or so. > >>> > >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. > >>> > >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Bob > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list > >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > >>> > >>> Archives > >>> | > >>> Modify > >>> < > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9 > > > >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > >>> < > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F > > > >>> [Powered by Listbox] > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as 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 > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 17 14:34:48 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:34:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1416252888.70971.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Nov 17 15:37:33 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:37:33 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <94D68119-8D80-4901-AC5C-79B5D001A40A@virtualized.org> On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:47 AM, McTim wrote: > Maybe Avri has a different recollection. I do recall that they got us all together and asked us our opinion. Out of curiosity, "they" who? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 17 16:00:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:30:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] NMI: The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance In-Reply-To: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill> References: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill> Message-ID: <546A61F2.4080103@itforchange.net> as appeared in the IP Watch http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/17/the-caravan-has-set-out-for-neo-liberal-capture-of-global-governance/ On Monday 17 November 2014 10:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > As many of you will be aware, JNC has been opposed a couple of months > ago to the first shape in which the “NetMundial Initiative” (NMI) had > been announced. > > NMI has now be redesigned in some ways, and WEF is now a bit less in the > foreground, but the underlying ideology is still the same. > > For this reason, JNC is still opposed. > > For a more detailed explanation see “The Caravan Has Set Out for a > Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance” at > > http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 17:20:08 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:20:08 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <94D68119-8D80-4901-AC5C-79B5D001A40A@virtualized.org> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> <94D68119-8D80-4901-AC5C-79B5D001A40A@virtualized.org> Message-ID: ISOC staff (read Lynn St. Amour) On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:47 AM, McTim wrote: > > Maybe Avri has a different recollection. I do recall that they got us > all together and asked us our opinion. > > Out of curiosity, "they" who? > > Regards, > -drc > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judith at jhellerstein.com Mon Nov 17 17:35:18 2014 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:35:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Hi Dierdre and Judy, I think we can and if we need any help Andrea Saks who is the Chairman ITU JCA-AHF (Joint Coordinating Activity on Accessibility and Human Factors) and also the Coordinator IGF DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability) I am sure would be happy to help. Judy I am sure you know her from your work on the Dyanmic Coalition. Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Deirdre Williams wrote: > My thought is "go for it". However I think it will be necessary to establish > that "people with disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an > issue. Ginger and I spent an hour discussing that last night without > reaching any resolution. This conversation began because of Lorena's > suggestion to institutionalise the inclusion of someone representative of > "the youth" as happened fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca > for the MAG. There are other interests which might also feel the > desirability of being given an "own representative". Can we present a strong > enough argument to persuade the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of > a somewhat "dangerous" precedent? > > On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns > raised in these forums is important,  but the utmost importance is to > have them involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to > have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > 'Chance Favors the prepared mind' - Louis Pasteur > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. > Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think > now we are reminded of it, thus imperative we all support > the call for inclusion. May be pass that as a resolution > to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG process. > Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we > will no longer forget. > Nice day all. > Remmy Nweke > @ITRealms > A member of DigitalSENSE > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: Deirdre Williams > Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 > To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] People with disabilities > > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on > the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant > voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this > for the last few years, but she has finished her term of > appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG > meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world > suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer > considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very > significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a > disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a > dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > ?The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > ?The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 17:41:01 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:41:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? Warm regards, Lorena 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised in > these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them > involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to have > this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >> process. >> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >> forget. >> Nice day all. >> Remmy Nweke >> @ITRealms >> A member of DigitalSENSE >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ------------------------------ >> From: Deirdre Williams >> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >> To: Internet Governance >> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >> >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Mon Nov 17 17:51:18 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:51:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing people with dissabilities, or the youth. Regards, Lorena 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity > of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? > Warm regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : > >> Thank you All, >> >> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >> >> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >> >> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >> >> De, whats your thought? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>> process. >>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>> forget. >>> Nice day all. >>> Remmy Nweke >>> @ITRealms >>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Deirdre Williams >>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>> To: Internet Governance >>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > > ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ > Youtube > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 17 17:53:16 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:53:16 +1100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE Message-ID: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation. Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Nov 17 18:09:22 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:09:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1f13dc97484b4412841023602e403d7a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents, using a poker-playing metaphor: This feels like a case where it may be best to take a seat at the table; just in case. Since chairs at preset tables which started without cs are more difficult to move. Now once at the table, who is bluffing and ready to fold and walk away asap if the NMI hand is not attractive on closer examination; and who sees this as either a big deal or a waste of time - need not be clear in this zero stage.? So I'll cautiously say why not do the CSCG thing. Especially since the I*groups save ICANN, and JNC are taking a pass this time or at this stage. And oh yeah Rousseff was just reelected; whatever her Petrobras headaches it likely won't hurt to have a BRIC head of state as a patron of...the art of this next game? : ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Ian Peter Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation. Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 19:11:33 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:11:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan Statement issued by the Just Net Coalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 19:25:11 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:25:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: So lets do it :-) Deirdre On 17 November 2014 18:51, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria > like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However > there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but > does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. > dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It > should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing > people with dissabilities, or the youth. > Regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > >> Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity >> of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? >> Warm regards, >> Lorena >> >> 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : >> >>> Thank you All, >>> >>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>> >>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>> >>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>> >>> De, whats your thought? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>> >>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>> process. >>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>>> forget. >>>> Nice day all. >>>> Remmy Nweke >>>> @ITRealms >>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>> >>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>> To: Internet Governance >>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>> >>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >> Arbeitsgruppe >> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> >> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >> >> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >> Youtube >> >> > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > > ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ > Youtube > > -- “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 jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Nov 17 19:37:44 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:37:44 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial Initiative. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > On Nov 17, 2014, at 6:11 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan > > Statement issued by the Just Net Coalition > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 18 00:12:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:42:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> Message-ID: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. > Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under > consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and > Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in > the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom > up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional > Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still > under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with > sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on > participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already > determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for > clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for > determining civil society representatives before making any final > decisions on participation. Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... parminder > Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way > signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision > on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to > participate in the NMI process. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 18 00:37:22 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:37:22 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is not possible for everyone to make an informed decision. Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant factors as regards considering involvement for others. Ian From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation. Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... parminder Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 judyokite at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 01:04:45 2014 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:04:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thank you All once again... This is a very healthy discussion, I love it. I was truly honored to have been in the MAG for the last three years, it was lovely, I have enjoyed it, learnt from it and that is why I made this suggestion in the last MAG meeting and would like to see this considered. we can have a very simple approach to this...over the years IGF has consulted with DCAD coordinated by Andrea Saks on issues on accessibility (Needs for persons with disabilities) as concerning venue and accommodation etc for the IGF global events. we can use the same avenue for the Secretariat to request for one person suggested by the DCAD for this representation- I believe this will give it the credibility that it deserves. We do appreciate the journey that the IGF has taken and the flexibility that the structure allows to accommodate new ideas and suggestions . This would be my approach, because I do not think that this has been brought to the table before .... the question is " what would it take for a "permanent seat" within the MAG for whoever may request for it. What is it that the secretariat may need to consider before coming to this conclusion? I hope that this can be posed to the consultation meeting and a clear way forward, I apologize in advance, I may not be able to be online for this meeting as I am involved in the UN-DISABILITY day(3rd Dec) celebrations in my country and I will also be launching a campaign on accessibility on that day. For the MAG members, here. and all those who will attend the meeting, either online or offline ,lets be part of these discussions. thank you all, once again! Kind Regards, *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > So lets do it :-) > Deirdre > > On 17 November 2014 18:51, Lorena Jaume-Palasi > wrote: > >> Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria >> like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However >> there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but >> does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. >> dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It >> should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing >> people with dissabilities, or the youth. >> Regards, >> Lorena >> >> 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : >> >>> Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity >>> of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? >>> Warm regards, >>> Lorena >>> >>> 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : >>> >>>> Thank you All, >>>> >>>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>>> >>>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>>> >>>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>>> >>>> De, whats your thought? >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>>> process. >>>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no >>>>> longer forget. >>>>> Nice day all. >>>>> Remmy Nweke >>>>> @ITRealms >>>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>>> To: Internet Governance >>>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>>> >>>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >>> Arbeitsgruppe >>> >>> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>> >>> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >>> >>> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >>> Youtube >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >> Arbeitsgruppe >> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> >> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >> >> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >> Youtube >> >> > > > > -- > “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 remmyn at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 01:08:22 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:08:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: <-9128675165625308307@unknownmsgid> Hi all Lets do it. +1 Remmy Nweke @ITRealms Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------ From: Lorena Jaume-Palasi Sent: 17/11/2014 23:51 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Judy Okite Cc: Remmy Nweke ; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] People with disabilities Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing people with dissabilities, or the youth. Regards, Lorena 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity > of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? > Warm regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : > >> Thank you All, >> >> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >> >> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >> >> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >> >> De, whats your thought? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>> process. >>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>> forget. >>> Nice day all. >>> Remmy Nweke >>> @ITRealms >>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Deirdre Williams >>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>> To: Internet Governance >>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí * Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de * www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter > > * Facebook * Twitter * > Youtube > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí * Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de * 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 01:11:07 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:41:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian, Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, > other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal ​ > there are differing opinions within civil society about this ​If the C ivil Society ​really like the Civil Society ​ Coordination Group ​ to be a Representative around the table, or be involved in the selection of Civil Society representatives, then Just Net Coalition's position could be considered rather rushed. How would NETmundial or any other initiative go by the position of CSCG as representative when there are other groups that want to have their own position? Also, if there are some disagreements with the NETmundial process, apart from writing to the Secretariat and the Transition council, it might ease matters if you directly reach out to Steve Crocker / Fadi / Harmut and others at CGI to sort out differences, rather than rush to conclude the differences as hard differences. I feel that NETmundial would be receptive enough if there is a single Civil Society opinion. Sivasubramanian M​ ​ ​​ On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Not really Parminder. As you know > ​​ > there are differing opinions within civil society about this, > and without clarity as regards how an involvement with NMI would work – > information we are seeking – it is not possible for everyone to make an > informed decision. Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain > a right of veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those > who oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant > factors as regards considering involvement for others. > > Ian > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET > MUNDIAL INITIATIVE > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. > > Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under > consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional > Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of > civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather > than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no > civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we > do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to > be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) > has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting > for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for > determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions > on participation. > > > Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the > concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or > something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression > and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear > and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and > actions it takes and so on... parminder > > > Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way > signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on > whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to > participate in the NMI process. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 18 01:28:12 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 06:28:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1416292092.44052.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Nov 18 02:49:04 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:49:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeremy, I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts. The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council" - Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, multistakeholder governance" - Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance Issues..." - Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many many years." - Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non technical issues". So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out of that elitist club once onboard. Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): - what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. - how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro and cons? - what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for this roadmap to share with us? - which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry business. - how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" critics. - are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a lower level, and the WEF a collaborator" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *. Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful conversation in this thread. Thanks JC * WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA." Wolfgang Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently. > > Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been expressed pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman. > > So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet. Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org. > > So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 18 03:08:59 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:38:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within > civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an > involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is > not possible for everyone to make an informed decision. I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues. JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). Is this incorrect.... > Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of veto > over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who oppose > involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant factors > as regards considering involvement for others. Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not oppose the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is very clear "**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so and so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to organize a selection process for civil society representatives for NMI's coordination committee..." Is this statement untrue? Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that letter public and people can make their own judgement. We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance Jeremy would want us to.... However, we write what we write responsibly and with full justification. Please make the mentioned letter public to NMI/ WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full discussion on this issue of who has expressed what view, and undertook what actions, and implications there of. It is really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be re considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM Initiative. parminder > Ian > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET > MUNDIAL INITIATIVE > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. >> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >> (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under >> consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and >> Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in >> the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated >> bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the >> Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). >> This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a >> proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to >> decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has >> already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting >> for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure >> for determining civil society representatives before making any final >> decisions on participation. > > Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by > the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS > nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in > taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to > make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening > within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... > parminder > >> Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way >> signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision >> on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to >> participate in the NMI process. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 18 03:12:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:42:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <546AFF7F.5050409@itforchange.net> This is exactly like, one party proposes marriage, and the other show great enthusiasm and starts discussing wedding arrangements, and at a later point says, well, of course, I never really meant to say yes to the proposal. .. parminder On Tuesday 18 November 2014 01:38 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within >> civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an >> involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is >> not possible for everyone to make an informed decision. > > I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given > conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and > agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues. > > JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). > Is this incorrect.... > >> Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of >> veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who >> oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant >> factors as regards considering involvement for others. > > Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not > oppose the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS > nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's > statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is > very clear > > "**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so > and so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee..." > > Is this statement untrue? > > Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head > to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of > concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that letter > public and people can make their own judgement. > > We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance > Jeremy would want us to.... However, we write what we write > responsibly and with full justification. Please make the mentioned > letter public to NMI/ WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full > discussion on this issue of who has expressed what view, and undertook > what actions, and implications there of. > > It is really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be > re considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent > statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was > precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see > movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS > groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM > Initiative. > > parminder >> Ian >> *From:* parminder >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN >> NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. >>> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination >>> Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is >>> still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat >>> and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating >>> role in the selection of civil society representatives in a >>> coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made >>> by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society >>> representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not >>> yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to >>> be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition >>> (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members >>> are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and >>> inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives >>> before making any final decisions on participation. >> >> Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by >> the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS >> nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in >> taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to >> make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is >> happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so >> on... parminder >> >>> Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no >>> way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final >>> decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection >>> process or to participate in the NMI process. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 18 03:15:38 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:15:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Second African School on IG Message-ID: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> Dear all Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which will start in Mauritius later this week. Best Anriette http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 18 03:31:15 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:31:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Second African School on IG In-Reply-To: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> Message-ID: <1416299475.29408.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 04:57:51 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:57:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Jean Christophe Compared to the questions proposed to BB, what is the deadline? In my case, I have to consult colleagues and collect their opinions. 2014-11-18 8:49 GMT+01:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>: > Jeremy, > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a > personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on > civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in > the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I > would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful > perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in > this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my > views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts. > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to > non JNC members: > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet > Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald > about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters > to create a "UN Security Council" > - Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at > HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, > multistakeholder governance" > - Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: > "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance > Issues..." > - Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are > at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise > as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well > beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many > many years." > - Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community > agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our > work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non > technical issues". > > So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can > have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, > the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao > Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to > get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the > beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a > few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's > questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out > of that elitist club once onboard. > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to > participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of > the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was > stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different > participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that > convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy > suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, > strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not > pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious > concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by > the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > - what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding > the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply > conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. > - how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro > and cons? > - what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative > about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A > coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A > driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for > this roadmap to share with us? > - which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative > according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and > CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry > business. > - how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an > exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that > initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as > specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" > critics. > - are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: > The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the > roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a *lower > level*, and the WEF a *collaborator*" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter > (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *. > > Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful > conversation in this thread. > > Thanks > JC > > > * WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a > "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the > main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after > Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will > continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will > "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). > But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the > various consultations in and aftrer LA." > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the > Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the > NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false > information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As Ian > Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have > made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened is that the we > have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to > participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our > self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives > independently. > > Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about > whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been expressed > pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the > NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC > give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the > initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single > central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist > critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style > bogeyman. > > So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should > bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply > conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con > arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the > Internet. Also note that a few civil society representatives, including > Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and a